[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@
wrote:
When reading the following passage from Swami
Muktananda's Satsang
with Baba, Volume III (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought
that
it
was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that
is,
that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of
stress
being released on the physical level:
According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless
impressions
of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna.
suSumna mf(%{A})n. very gracious or kind RV. VS. ; m. N. of one of
the 7 principal rays of the sun (supposed to supply heat to the
moon) VP. ; ***(%{A}*) f. a partic. artery (prob. ` the carotid ')
or vein of the body (lying between those called %{iDA} and %
{piGgalA} , and supposed to be one of the passages for the breath or
spirit ; cf. %{brahma-randhra}) Up. BhP. Ra1jat. - 1.
*) suSumnaa [~soo-shoomnar -- aarrghh!]; in this
case the long (diirgha) 'a' at the end indicates
that this is a (grammatically) feminine gender word
su 2 ({sU3}) adv. well, indeed (strengthening and assevering);
often --- in adj., adv., subst. = Gr. 'eu (opp. {dus}).
sumna mfn. (prob. fr. 5. %{su} and %{mnA} = %{man}) benevolent ,
kind , gracious , favourable RV. x , 5 , 3 ; 7 ; (%{am}) n.
benevolence , favour , grace RV. TS. ; devotion , prayer , hymn (cf.
Gk. $) RV. ; 371866[1231 ,3] satisfaction , peace , joy , happiness
ib. ; N. of various Sa1mans A1rshBr.
mnA (cf. %{man} , with which %{mnA} was originally identical) cl. 1.
P. Dha1tup. xxii , 31 ; %{manati} (Gr. also pf. %{mamnau} ; aor. %
{amnAsIt} ; Prec. %{mnAyAt} , or %{mneyAt} ; fut. %{mnAtA} and %
{mnAsyati} ; inf. %{mnAtum}: Caus. %{mnApayati} aor. %{amimnapat}:
Desid. %{mimnAsati}: Intens. , %{mAmnAyate} , %{mAmnAti} , %
{mAmneti}) , only in %{anu-} , %{A-} , %{praty-A-} , %{sam-A-} , %
{pari-mnA}.
man, manyate, -ti, manute , pp. {mata3} (q.v.) think, believe, [[-
,]] imagine; consider as or take for (2 acc., acc. dat., or acc.
adv. in {vat}), also refl. consider one's self as, pass for, appear
as (nom. {ñiva}); think fit or right, approve of (acc.); think of,
meditate on (as in prayer), intend or wish for, remember, mention,
declare (acc., r. gen.); find out, invent; perceive, observe, know,
understand, comprehend (gen. or acc.). With {bahu} esteem, honour,
w. {laghu} disesteem, despise, w. {sAdhu} ({ñiti}) approve, commend,
w. {tRNAya} (cf. above) value at a straw, esteem lightly, w. {na}
think nothing of, disregard; {manye} methinks-(often inserted
parenthetically). C. {mAnayati} ({-te}), pp. {mAnita} honour,
esteem. D. {mImAMsate} ({-ti}) consider, examine, call in question. -
- {ati} value lightly, slighten; be proud or conceited. {anu}
assent, approve, like; acknowledge as (2 acc.); grant, impart;
allow, permit; indulge, forgive; w. {na} have no patience with,
dislike. C. ask (acc.) for permission, take leave of (acc.), beg for
(acc.); honour, regard, consider. {ava} disregard, despise. {abhi}
put one's mind upon, wish for (acc.), love, like; have (evil)
intentions against (acc.), threaten, menace, hurt, injure, kill;
think, suppose, take for or consider as (2 acc., P. 2 nom.). {ava}
despise, treat contemptuously, disregard. {abhyava} the same. {pari}
overlook, neglect, forget. {prati} answer, return, oppose (2 acc.).
C. honour, applaud, regard, consider, deign to accept. {vi}
distinguish. C. disgrace, disregard, slighten. {sam} think, suppose,
take for (2 acc.); intend, purpose; esteem, honour. C. honour,
revere. -- Cf. {a3numata, abhimata, vimata, saMmata}.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edg, great stuff. I agree. Edg had me singing I fought the doubt for some time last night. :-) The only doubt that in my mind is whether to credit the original melody to Sonny Curtis of the Crickets or to Bobby Fuller. There is no doubt whatsoever about the guy who wrote all this stuff about Rick. The *only* thing I can feel for someone who thinks like that is pity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Rick, I gotta tip my hat to you for keeping whatever it is you got going that folks like The Purusha Guy trust enough to, you know, actually deign to communicate with you (us.) Even though this guy probably cannot be reached by any reasoning or experimental results-to-the-contrary-of-TM-dogma, to me, it's nice to bump up against these little touches of the movement now and then -- like they were tarantulas in a petting zoo. I think the mindset expressed by this guy is chilling, and yes, I practiced that very mindset for decades. This practice improved my skills greatly -- in fact, even today, I could still write a much smarmier and haughtier piece than this guy's work, below. It's like riding a bike, eh? Hell, I told all my initiates that, Yes, on average, in about 5 - 8 years, one can reasonably expect to have enlightenment just around the corner if not fully blossomed. I had been meditating for less than a year but I was teaching TM, and oh so sure about those nuclear bombs of truth -- 5 - 8 years to freedom, and deeper rest than sleep can achieve -- and I was no slouch when it came small arms fire either as I sold that even in a few days one can notice profound results. Hey, in the jungles of Africa, a village medicine man can shake a bone at someone, and everyone in the village knows that bonified guy is going to die, and sure enough the guy dies. So, who was I to NOT make those promises which I spoke almost verbatim (we all memorized checking notes, puja words, puja meanings, puja actions, 1st and 2nd lectures, 3 days checking, 10 day follow up) cuz those were the words of an enlightened saint didn'tchaknow, and so fershure they would come true. Then more swiftly than an Arjuna arrow can pierce a demon's heart, 29 years passed, and there was I with 2,000 people I had taken money from by selling these fantasies to them, and I was the proud owner of a ruined life with no fucking enlightenment, no worldly success roaring under me like a beloved pet tiger, no visions of Guru Dev thanking God for creating me, no person on Mother Divine or Purusha who could hover, no old folks kicking their heels and doing 360's on skateboards, no birds alighting on my shoulders whispering messages from Saint Frances, no marvelous psychic insights, no vaunting wisdom, no movement leaders finally maturing into obvious masters, no kids planning on staying forever near utopian Fairfield's hearth light, no TM business people with ethics towards their employees, no fucking nothing except the fucking over by an ancient Hindu promise machine that, go figure, found out that its marketing techniques worked on hippies with trust funds. Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you, Maharishi. And to think all my failure could have all been avoided if I had been forewarned about doubt. I firehosed doubt's least spark in my or my family's life, but I gotta tell ya, ain't nothing seeing King Nadar's crown for a lethal dose of doubt. I fought da doubt. And da doubt won. I'm only a man with one brain, and the movement's tsunami of disdain, avalanche of greed, and deep impact of hypocrisy done did me in. But h, maybe I should get me a jar of honey and bring back big bombast and become a bumblebum for Bevan. Say that aloud three times fast. Now, let's get something straight FOR THE REST OF TIME. Here it is: After 29 years, I still have that fucking anger, undissipated, and it's muscling me around like a ventriloquist's dummy. I'm confessing here. My lizard brain wasn't calmed down after all that time, but I'm betting that The Purusha Guy will go out on the streets today and promise every manner of protection from the evils of the body and mind. And he'll gladly take not just your initiation fees but also every other dime you or your family or your child's college fund has, and then, if you complain about lack of results, he'll kick you in the face and say, You doubter! Now that's evil. That's cruelty. That's enough for me want to take this guy's smirk off his face with a custard pie. Why hell, if I'd hit a punching bag for as many times as I took the mantra, I'd be a freaking martial artist master, but, in my astral mirror, my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy: Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't address the plausibility of the scenario. Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence, after having decided--on the basis of no evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the truth when he said he was just speculating. Me: You missed my point completely. I wasn't commenting on his truth telling, I was disagreeing with him and his personal attack on Rick instead of dealing with issues Rick has raised. That's the issue. He has been taught for so many decades to react to any former TMer who has come to believe different things than he believes as angry, and as attacking him by believing them, that he cannot think any other way. I find that pathetic, not admirable. Obviously, mileage varies in this regard. You didn't understand any of my previous response did you? Your point does not matter. The speculation point is your own weird fixation that completely missed the point of the conversation. Exactly. The point Curtis was making was that attacking the person who has the ideas while never dealing with the ideas is a copout, a pathetic exercise in ego and self-defense that is *irrelevant* to the ideas, because it has to do only with the self (*very* small s), which has never been attacked, and which doesn't deserve to be defended. The *only* thing that has happened is that Rick has come to believe different things than this fellow has come to believe. The fellow believes that this constitutes some kind of attack. That behavior should only inspire pity in the observer, not any kind of speculative defense of his actions. Judy: I was making a meta observation about *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity or lack thereof of the guy's analysis. ME: Yes you were trying hard to find something wrong with what I said so you had to focus on an irrelevant point. I have a pretty good idea why you are so invested in defending a person who makes personal psychobabble comments about a person personally instead of talking about the intellectual points raised...ad hominem arguments are not valid. Is that clear enough? I think we can speculate, on the basis of exper- ience, that it won't be clear enough. :-) Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the evidence while he often does exactly the same thing he's criticizing. ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he still had them. And that he has been TAUGHT -- systematically, for decades -- to think this way. That is part and parcel of Maharishi's teaching about doubts about him and about TM. It's a form of mind control in which the student is TAUGHT to regard any deviation from the dogma as bad and as some kind of attack against those who know the truth. The guy is just DOING WHAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO DO. So, in my opinion, is Judy. That they don't *understand* this makes the behavior they are exhibiting even more pathetic, and even more deserving of pity. You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an irrelevant point. But that is how they (anyone who regularly indulges in ad hominem when confronted with ideas they don't like) have been TAUGHT to act. They're *literally* doing what they have been taught to do by their spiritual teacher. They have seen *him* do it so many times over the years that they have come to believe that it is not only acceptable, but admir- able. They're mimicking *Maharishi's* behavior. The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting discussion. Bingo. What you focus on, you become. Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. The only point I'm trying to interject into the discussion is that the agenda here is NOT inexplicable. It's very clear. It has to do with a technique of mind control that can be described as, Teach your students to regard and react to any ideas that are counter to the ones they've been taught to believe as if those ideas themselves are an 'attack,' as if the person who has those ideas is an 'attacker,' and as if the person has somehow declared 'war' on those who 'think rightly.' In war anything is permissible, so it's is not only 'Ok' to trash the person who has expressed these unacceptable ideas using ad hominem attacks, it is one's 'duty' as a spiritual being to do so. These people have been TRAINED to use ad
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, excellent analysis and I agree with you that the 'discussion' itself is a good thing. I mean, it seems like such a unique relationship -- the guru/disciple one -- and more peculiar yet, the guru/former- disciple relationship, or the false-guru/former-disciple-now- disciple-of-better-guru one, etc.). I don't know if FFL is the only forum that lets everyone who might be a member of some subset of the guru/disciple relationship (above), speak, discuss and argue their position, but the fact that it does is fantastic. I completely agree, and I want to focus on one word in Marek's reply -- lets. THAT is the thing that these two individuals who have deigned to discuss things with Rick are upset about. THAT is what has their panties in a twist. On this forum, Rick *lets* people discuss this rela- tionship. They can say anything they want about it, and think anything they want about it, and NOTHING BAD HAPPENS TO THEM IF THEY SAY THE 'WRONG' THINGS. THAT is what these Purusha guys are upset about. It's the OPPOSITE of the environment that they are used to. It's heresy, with a capital H and that stands for Hell. For DECADES now, these guys have lived within a spir- itual environment in which if one entertained doubts they would be sent to Hell. That is, they would be expelled from the TM movement, which is something that -- to them, because they have come to believe what they were taught by Maharishi -- is equivalent to Hell. Express a doubt about the nature of one's relationship with one's spiritual teacher or about that teacher himself and BAM!, the hammer falls and you're OUTA THERE. The big, bad hand of karma comes down and smites the sinner and knocks him out of the batter's cage. And all of the remaining players on the team cheer inwardly, because it happened to someone else, not to them. The sinner got sent to Hell, and they didn't. Not yet. What they're angry with Rick about is that he has created a forum that *lets* people talk about this relationship of student and teacher freely, and that doesn't send offenders to Hell for saying the wrong things. This offends them mightily, so much so that they refer to Fairfield Life as a website, as if it were a propaganda site created by someone with an anti-TM and anti-Maharishi agenda, in an attempt to destroy both. It isn't, of course. It's just a forum where people are allowed to speak freely. The fact that these people perceives FFL and Rick so negatively for doing nothing more than allowing people to speak their minds speaks volumes. They have grown comfortable over the decades living in an environment in which they CANNOT speak their minds. If they do, and if the things those minds speak about are off the program, they'll be sent to Hell. End of story. That's the way it works, and everyone here, no matter how much they may protest or claim otherwise, KNOWS that that's the way it works. The TM movement is an environment in which people are *prohibited* from expressing their doubts. Doubt is perceived as a Bad Thing, a sin, and thus Bad Things will happen to you if you allow doubt to enter your mind and, even worse, give expression to those doubts in public. Fairfield Life isn't like that, and that's why these sad individuals hate it so much, and seem to hate Rick for having created it. Rick has done nothing more than create a forum on which he *lets* people talk. And these sad individuals are so used to an environ- ment in which that is perceived as WRONG that they have to believe that Rick is wrong for having done it. Think about that. Isn't that the saddest thing you've ever heard? Obviously, word has gotten back to these head-in-the-sand types that there is an environment out there in which people are allowed to talk freely about TM, about Maharishi, and about Things Spiritual. And this upsets them so much that they have actively attempted to reach out to Rick and try to convince him of the error of his ways, SO THAT HE'LL SHUT DOWN THE HERETICAL ENVIRONMENT. The thing that these people are offended by is, as hard as it is to believe, spiritual seekers being *allowed* to have doubts, and to express them. They are so uncomfortable with this notion that they feel the need to bash away at Rick with an ad hominem ugly stick for having created such a forum. Rick, in their eyes, is a sinner because he *lets* people think for themselves, and express those thoughts. Bad Rick. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD. He should go to Hell for having done what he's done. Just as *they* expect to go to Hell if *they* ever have a thought that is considered off the program. The things they say about Rick are what they believe will happen to *them* if they ever admit to their own doubts.
[FairfieldLife] War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for peace that was snuffed out of their lives by the 2003 US invasion. Around 80 Shia and tribal leaders, mostly dressed in traditional Arab gear, listened attentively to Ravi Shankar at the office of a Shia group in Baghdad as he pleaded with them to end all killings.According to his Art of Living Foundation, Ravi Shankar also met separately a group of grieving Iraqi women widowed by the unending insurgency and Shia-Sunni conflict.While one tribal leader blamed the US for their suffering, a Red Crescent official told the guru to bring into Iraqi lives 'the art of living since they only know the art of dying', a spokesperson for Ravi Shankar told IANS over phone from Bangalore. And Prime Minister Nouri al Malaki, who has invited Ravi Shankar as an ambassador of peace, urged him late Tuesday, shortly after his arrival, to help reform prisoners in Baghdad's jails through yoga and meditation.Art of Living officials said they - and also Ravi Shankar - were overwhelmed by the response to their guru's three-day visit to Iraq.'The response is simply terrific,' a spokesperson said, quoting reports received from Baghdad. 'The people of Iraq want peace and deserve peace.'It is the first time an Indian guru or for that matter any non-Islamic spiritual leader of some standing has forayed into Baghdad, a once serene city that now knows only suicide bombings, firings and fratricidal killings.With the American occupation turning Iraq upside down, having killed over 655,000 people and wounding many more, Iraqis are desperate to regain the stable life they were long used to. The Art of Living Foundation, which enjoys a vast following in India and abroad, says the yoga, meditation and breathing techniques it advocates are powerful weapons than can kill anxiety and depression that have gripped Iraq.Seated on a raised platform and speaking in English with an Arabic interpreter in attendance, Ravi Shankar referred to Mahatma Gandhi and urged Shia and tribal leaders: 'Give non-violence a try, give peace a chance.'This was the message he conveyed to everyone, his aides said.Ravi Shankar flew into Baghdad from Amman Tuesday. His entourage took two and a half hours to cover the short distance from the Baghdad airport to his hotel in the US-protected Green Zone area.The Art of Living Foundation, which has been active in Iraq for four years and has many Iraqi volunteers, runs prisoner reform programmes in several cities including New Delhi.Earlier, Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit met Ravi Shankar in Amman, where the guru presided over a meeting of 1,000 people eager to learn yoga, meditation and breathing techniques.Ravi Shankar is to visit the Art of Living trauma relief centre in Baghdad and then return to Amman where he will talk at the University of Jordan and attend a VIP reception thrown in his honour.Since 2003, the Art of Living and its sister concern, The International Association for Human Values, have been working under difficult circumstances in Iraq to help people overcome their deep pain and suffering.The volunteers have also conducted trauma relief courses in various parts of Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Medicines, food and clothes have also been offered. At a time when most NGOs have been compelled to evacuate their volunteers from Iraq following violence and kidnappings, Art of Living has stayed put. Last year, 43 Iraqis, mostly women, graduated to be Art of Living teachers. So far, 5,000 Iraqis have undergone the Art of Living trauma relief workshops apart from attending ayurvedic training camps. Ravi Shankar's followers have also initiated a women empowerment project under which Iraqi women get vocational training such as tailoring and computer skills. Over 500 women have benefited from the programme. This story can be read at this link: http://in.news.yahoo.com/070523/43/6g5kr.html Picture of His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki can be viewed here: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/23look.htm Regards Rama Krishna - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with talking with these people [the two guys Rick has posted excerpts from recently] is that they define bashing as saying anything that contradicts their view of MMY... Bingo. That is one of the aspects of this damaging mental virus mentality that I've tried the longest to bring to the surface on this forum, and on others. These guys feel *attacked* because Rick believes something different than they do. End of story. If that doesn't speak volumes about them, and about the poverty of their beliefs, I don't know what does. ...as beyond all human aspects and the greatest sage ever to walk the earth. This is the other aspect of this issue that I think people should be more aware of. In my opinion (and that is all it is), people who react this strongly to people who have thoughts about Maharishi that they consider negative are NOT reacting out of a sense of protecting Maharishi or defending his honor. That's what they *claim*. But I don't think it's true. I think that what feels attacked are their selves (small s self), which have developed an unrealistic view of their own self importance, for the silliest of reasons -- because those selves gets to hang with someone they have been convinced to believe is more than human. Any suggestion that Maharishi is just human is con- sidered an attack because it follows that if Maharishi is just human, so are his followers. And THAT is the thing they don't like to contemplate, and that they perceive as an attack. They're SPECIAL because they get to hang with Maharishi. Any suggestion that Maharishi isn't special and perfect and pure Blazing Brahman is a suggestion that THEY are less than special themselves. But they ARE less than special. They're ORDINARY. Just more spiritual seekers who have chosen to put (in many if not most cases) the first spiritual teacher they ever ran into in their lives up on a pedestal and con- sider him perfect, the best such teacher who ever lived, the only one in modern times who has cognized the Vedas...and so on and so on, ad nauseum. Every time they do this with Maharishi, and boost the height of the pedestal they have placed him on, they boost the regard that they have for their own puny selves. And every time someone looks at Maharishi as ordinary, they feel the pinch of considering the possibility that they are ordinary themselves. I think this whole thing is an exercise in silliness. There is nothing more liberating than realizing one's own ordinariness. That has been the message of real spiritual teachers as long as there have been spiritual teachers. The ones who emphasize getting over your small self and realizing that it's NOT special probably have some- thing of value to offer, in my opinion. The ones who try to convince their followers how special they are is trying to get something from them. It's not bashing to investigate into the truth about someone, anyone. NO ONE is above critical inquiry into their actions. Again, anyone who suggests otherwise is IMO trying to get something from the followers who he has convinced that he IS above critical inquiry. And it's not spiritual to sit passively, naively, stupidly, and quietly ignoring all the questionable behaviors within the tmo - And yet, this is being held up by these two guys *as if* it *were* a high and valuable spiritual trait. That is how brainwashed they have become by Maharishi's teachings in this regard. To them, doubt and critical thinking is a POISON. Those who have indulged in it have become poisoned, and are now trying to poison others. true spiritual people are passionately devoted to investigating into the truth of reality, adn true spiritual masters encourage that and don't exempt themselves as above questioning. Most spiritual paths that I consider valuable insist that one *has* to include oneself (one's self) in all of the critical inquiry. THAT is the reason that I think these guys cannot bring themselves to think critically about Maharishi. If they did, they'd have to think critically about *themselves*, and about all of the decisions they've made over the decades. Can't have that. There's another aspect of this which is really a more complex topic, but it's the issue of what makes these people think MMY is their master. MMY doesn't know most of them exist. And wouldn't give a shit about them if he did. Maybe they've been in a crowded room with him once or twice within the past 30 yrs, but they haven't gotten any personal advice or initiation from him. They practice his techniques but anyone who pays the costs gets the same standardized, non individualized practice. Not quite true. If you have a million bucks, you can get some special techniques. Techniques that, based on all evidence, leave you just as unenlightened as the normal, over-the-counter techniques. Has MMY *ever* pointed to even *one* of his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm seeing 38 posts for Judy and 37 for Shemp, and we've got one day to go. Yahoo has been sending some duplicate emails, so if you're certain of a more accurate count, you may be within the limit, but you must be getting close. Speaking as a former skeptic about the 35 posts per week limit, I have to speak up as a supporter of it now. And for an interesting spiritual reason. It emphasizes the desirability of being able to live in the present and not the past. Suppose that a poster is...uh...a tad uncontrolled in their posting habits, and feels somewhat of an... uh...compulsion to answer or refute any post that contains ideas counter to their own. Further suppose that this poster exceeds the limit one week, and therefore has to spend a whole day or more *not* compulsively answering and refuting the posts made on the day that he is unable to post. What happens? Well, he builds up a refuting deficit, a posting gap. If his nature is to always answer and refute all posts that challenge his viewpoints, and is unable to do so in real time, he's going to have to answer and refute the offending posts the next time he is allowed to post. Suppose on that last day of the former week, the day he can't post, other posters here make ten such offending posts, posts that in his mind just *scream* to be answered and refuted. Well, these posts just have to be answered, don't they? It's the compulsive poster's duty to answer and refute them. So the new week starts, and the compulsive, can't- get-over-the-past posters who exceeded their limits the week before just have to answer them. Say there were ten such posts made on the last day of the previous week that just scream for a reply. Well, the poster who has previously gone over his limit will have to answer them the next week, first thing, leaving him with only 25 more posts that he can make in real time, that deal with issues happening in the present. Having exhibited a lack of control once, there is a strong chance that the compulsive poster will then exceed his limit *again* the next week, this time probably on Wednesday rather than Thursday. So what happens then? The compulsive poster has to sit there and not respond to maybe 20 new real-time posts made at the end of the week. These posts, and the ideas contained in them, will eat away at them so much that, come the *next* week, they'll have to answer *them* as well, leaving them with only 15 real-time posts that they can make that week. And the next week, only 5. And the week after that, perhaps no real-time posts at all. See the beauty of it all? The compulsive posters are now caught in a cycle of their own design, cutting down on the number of real-time, Here And Now posts that they *can* reply to each succeeding week, effectively silencing themselves. :-) And what will happen if they actually realize this, or if someone tips them off ahead of time to the cycle they're caught in? :-) Well, they'll probably try to put several of their compulsive replies in one long post, *so* long that no one here will even bother to read it. Again, silencing themselves. It's a great system in my opinion. Those who can exercise some modicum of control with regard to their posting habits never have to deal with this cycle, and get to live in the Here And Now. Those who cannot get caught in a compulsive cycle of living in the past, and get to live in the past. Everyone gets to play using the same rules, on a footing of total equality of expression. And only the ones who cannot control the frequency of their expression suffer from it. Great idea, Rick, and those others here who thought it up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?
On May 25, 2007, at 6:59 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Suppose that a poster is...uh...a tad uncontrolled in their posting habits, and feels somewhat of an... uh...compulsion to answer or refute any post that contains ideas counter to their own. Sounds like digital stalking to me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A different explanation of stress release
On May 24, 2007, at 8:53 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's Satsang with Baba, Volume III (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress being released on the physical level: According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings that come to the conscious surface. This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves.
[FairfieldLife] Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
[ SPOILER ALERT -- if you have not been following the ABC television series called Lost, or have and have not seen the last episode of this season, or are even thinking of catching up to the series in the future, you might not want to read this. I will be revealing plot spoilers, and you probably don't want to know about them. Avoid the problem before it arises and click Next right now. :-) ] I just finished watching my pirated copy of the last episode of the season of Lost. And, having made a few posts today on the subject of whether the demonization of and suppression of doubt in a spiritual tradition is a good thing, I couldn't help but notice the parallels in Lost. Ben, the leader of the Others, is in Deep Shit. For years -- possibly decades -- he has been sys- tematically lying to the people he leads. He's been telling them that he is in communication with the mystical man behind the curtain on this whole Island Of Oz, Jacob. Jacob has got Reality down cold; he knows What's What, Spiritually, and so when Jacob speaks -- through Ben, of course -- they should not only listen, and obey, but they should never, ever question what Ben says. Because to do so would be to question Jacob, and thus What's What, Spiritually. In the last few episodes, it has been revealed that Jacob might not exist. And that Ben, who *invented* the dogma of never questioning what he says, and of doing without question and without hesitation everything he says, has been doing some pretty shady stuff to those who discover that Jacob might not exist, or even to those who discover that Ben is fallible. Whenever one of his own people discovers the truth about him, Ben has them killed or excom- municates them or kills them himself. And now, in this last episode, he's been *proven* fallible. EVERY ONE of his followers knows that he's fallible. And several of them now know that he has been systematically lying to them all along, telling them things that he knew were not true. One of them, who now knows this for himself, has even been ordered by Ben to kill two of his fellow Others, BECAUSE they have found out the truth about Ben, and can't be allowed to live and possibly tell others what they have found out. And Ben is freaking right out. He's on this mad dash across the island, trying to salvage his own repu- tation and trying to do something...anything...to regain the control he's had over the minds of his followers for decades. And natch, being the season closer, it's a cliffhanger. We in the audience are left not knowing whether he'll win out and reestablsh control or not. I'm not bothered overmuch by this. I have a sneakin' suspicion how it'll all turn out for Ben, and for his former followers, in the end. Whether it takes one more television season or ten to resolve every- thing, Ben's goin' down. He's toast. He's toast because of a spiritual truism, one that I think is as close to truth as anything I've ever heard on the planet. It was perhaps best expressed by Gandhi: When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it...always. Ben's goin' down because he forsook the ways of truth and love. He started believing that the means are justified by the end, and forgot that the means ARE the end. How you act determines your karma, not the supposed intent behind it. If you lie, you create the karma of a liar -- EVEN IF you've convinced yourself that you're lying for the right reasons. If you can only relate to other human beings if they believe every word you say, do exactly the things that you tell them to do, and never doubt you, even for a moment, then do you really love them? I'm not convinced you do. Love in my book involves offering the person you love the freedom to think for themselves. I am not convinced that the demonization of and attempted suppression of doubt EVER works. As Edg suggested yesterday, try to fight it and suppress it however you might, doubt wins. No spiritual tradition in history has ever been successful at suppressing doubt, because doubt is as fundamental and as natural a part of the spiritual process as is the natural tendency of the mind. Seekers doubt. That's the force that keeps them evolving. To suppress doubt and the essential I-don't-know-everything-yet-ness of it is IMO to fight against evolution itself. But doubt only *really* wins if there is something there to justify the doubt. If a spiritual seeker doubts the wisdom or perfection of his spiritual seeker and looks into it and finds no foun- ation for the doubt, doubt has only *strengthened* the seeker's belief in the teacher. ONLY IF -- upon careful analysis of the doubt and looking at all the evidence, the seeker finds that the doubt is based on fact -- can his belief in the teacher be eroded or destroyed. Ben took the wrong path as a spiritual
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
shempmcgurk wrote: We fought a Civil War to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery. This post should probably read illegal aliens since the term immigrants should be reserved for those who apply for a visa BEFORE they sneak in illegally.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his disciples. And Bill Clinton brutally raped Juanita Broderick. So what? Whether it's true or untrue regarding what Clinton or Muktananda or Maharishi did, we won't know for sure until said gentlemen are brought to trial for these alleged crimes (assuming they are still alive). In the meantime we can take the positive stuff they said and did and dwell on that. Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! He initiated me into Shaktipat in 1980. (dug his fingers into my eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual field). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's Satsang with Baba, Volume III (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress being released on the physical level: According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings that come to the conscious surface. Very nice; many thanks, Shemp! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 2007, at 8:53 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's Satsang with Baba, Volume III (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress being released on the physical level: According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings that come to the conscious surface. This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
Jim wrote: It is the money hogs that foster this anger towards the illegals, so that no one looks at the money hogs instead. Its a shell game which most of the country falls for, again and again. So, Jim, you're paying a shell game with your money. You do buy food right? And you don't want to pay higher prices for your produce, right? So, you're playing a shell game and supporting the illegal aliens by purchasing cheap food harvested by illegal aliens. If the unemployment rate is over 4% now, and the minimum wage is being raised, why don't the unemployed Americans get a job harvesting and managing food sources and displace the illegal aliens? That way, there would be zero unemployed, zero illegal aliens, and everyone could afford their own health insurance. Or, you could grow your own food instead of supporting the multinational grocery chains. What do you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 2007, at 8:53 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: When reading the following passage from Swami Muktananda's Satsang with Baba, Volume III (August 18, 1972, page 122), I thought that it was another explanation of the mechanics of stress release; that is, that the thoughts we have during meditation are indications of stress being released on the physical level: According to the seers of the yogic scriptures, countless impressions of past lives are embedded in the central nadi, sushumna. After Kundalini becomes awake, these impressions start rising to the surface. You should be aware that they are coming to the surface to be ejected from the system. If you are aware of this truth, you will find it entirely pointless to be concerned or overwhelmed by the feelings that come to the conscious surface. This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. You could be right, although it occurs to me that the pranic or vajra bodies' stresses must have correlating symptoms in the physical body. Given that, and the attempt of the TM organization to explain TM in terms that the scientific community recognizes leads to their reliance on physical influences from TM. So the primary action of TM may not be on the physical body, but its close enough.;- ) Your explanation may be more accurate, but it wouldn't sell in today's world. Nor is the TM explanation a myth, per se. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an idea of what is involved.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
On May 25, 2007, at 1:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Edg, great stuff. I agree. Edg had me singing I fought the doubt And the doubt won? for some time last night. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rama krishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for peace that was snuffed out of their lives by the 2003 US invasion. He's playing a dangerous game. There are two powerful parties that do not want peace. They may not take kindly to an outsider getting in their way. I hope he wears a flak jacket under his usual dress. Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim wrote: It is the money hogs that foster this anger towards the illegals, so that no one looks at the money hogs instead. Its a shell game which most of the country falls for, again and again. So, Jim, you're paying a shell game with your money. You do buy food right? And you don't want to pay higher prices for your produce, right? So, you're playing a shell game and supporting the illegal aliens by purchasing cheap food harvested by illegal aliens. If the unemployment rate is over 4% now, and the minimum wage is being raised, why don't the unemployed Americans get a job harvesting and managing food sources and displace the illegal aliens? That way, there would be zero unemployed, zero illegal aliens, and everyone could afford their own health insurance. Or, you could grow your own food instead of supporting the multinational grocery chains. What do you think? I was making the point above that if you watch the media closely, in general it protects large corporations and government programs from dedicated and focused scrutiny. The focus with the illegal immigration issue is always on the illegal immigrants and it focuses a lot of anger on them. If on the other hand, we put as little enforcement on the businesses that hire them as we do catching illegal immigrants at the border, and backed it up with stiff fines and/or jail terms, the illegal immigration problem would go away overnight; no demand, no supply. It is not a mistake that I said as little enforcement above, because although we spend more resources to catch and deport illegal immigrants at the Mexican border, it is still and always will be a pathetically impotent effort, designed more for show than effect. It is the shadow policy of every administration to continue illiegal immigration because of the profits raked in by those who exploit the situation. It is a shadow policy of every administration to create a permanent underclass to keep profits high. The official perspective is different, though, and pretty much just empty words. As the expression goes, bad policy starts at the top. Begin to look at those behind the curtain. Whole lotta maya goin' on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an idea of what is involved. Who cares? It works. That is the important thing. Otherwise, if we tried to reach consensus on how it works, we'd still be stuck at some series of inertia laden academic conferences, debating the issue. Is that really preferable?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
The only time so-called big business has ever been caught hiring illegals is through sub-contractors, who do the direct hiring of illegals. jstein wrote: Tyson Foods Miller Brewing Honeywell Home Depot Ford Wells Fargo Bank Hormel IHOP Swift and Co. All hire illegals. So, they are illegals, but are you suggesting that the above companies employ 12 million of them, all with stolen or forged Social Security cards? What percentage of the illegals are employed by the above cited companies? 1%?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
On May 25, 2007, at 12:14 AM, Kenny H wrote: Well, I know I will get bashed for this, but this whole discussion is a clearcut example of a stupid discussion, a seriously stupid discussion. But you gotta love the subject heading. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rama krishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to...[snip] Before Team America showed up, Iraq was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an idea of what is involved. utterly fallacious and misleading? Methinks you doth protest too much. It's just an innoculous way of saying the same thing to make it palatable to another audience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ann Coulter on illegal immigrants
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only time so-called big business has ever been caught hiring illegals is through sub-contractors, who do the direct hiring of illegals. jstein wrote: Tyson Foods Miller Brewing Honeywell Home Depot Ford Wells Fargo Bank Hormel IHOP Swift and Co. All hire illegals. So, they are illegals, but are you suggesting that the above companies employ 12 million of them, all with stolen or forged Social Security cards? What percentage of the illegals are employed by the above cited companies? 1%? It's far, far less than 1%. I know. I'm relying on the same source as Judy is (the Akasha).
[FairfieldLife] Strangest disaster of the 20th century
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th- century/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Somewhere in the Akash
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kenny H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I know I will get bashed for this, but this whole discussion is a clearcut example of a stupid discussion, a seriously stupid discussion. I can't disagree. Sometimes this is easier to spot from outside. It was a diversion from a very interesting topic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Judy: Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't address the plausibility of the scenario. Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence, after having decided--on the basis of no evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the truth when he said he was just speculating. Me: You missed my point completely. No, Curtis, sorry. Your point was obvious. I was making a different point. I wasn't commenting on his truth telling, I was disagreeing with him and his personal attack on Rick instead of dealing with issues Rick has raised. Yes, Curtis, I know that's what you were doing. But the only way you could do that was to claim he wasn't telling the truth when he said he was speculating. You didn't understand any of my previous response did you? Yes, Curtis. Sorry, your points were obvious. I was making a different point. Your point does not matter. The speculation point is your own weird fixation that completely missed the point of the conversation. No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. You just don't want to deal with it. Judy: I was making a meta observation about *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity or lack thereof of the guy's analysis. ME: Yes you were trying hard to find something wrong with what I said so you had to focus on an irrelevant point. I have a pretty good idea why you are so invested in defending a person who makes personal psychobabble comments about a person personally instead of talking about the intellectual points raised...ad hominem arguments are not valid. Is that clear enough? (Says Curtis, indulging in ad hominem.) No, I wasn't defending the guy in my posts about your post. I pointed that out explicitly. I was criticizing you. Judy: In my experience, Curtis tends to get all hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the evidence while he often does exactly the same thing he's criticizing. ME: Yes Judy I am both hoity and toity. Your point about evidence is, as I already pointed out, irrelevant since I was using his own words as the basis for my opinions. It was directly relevant to *my* point. You claimed he was just spinning when he said he was speculating. But you had no evidence for that. Your whole analysis was based on the notion that he was attacking Rick, saying that this *was so* about Rick. He said explicitly that he *didn't know* if it was so. He was the one who suggested that even though Rick didn't seem to express his list of negative emotions he still had them. You are the one who is making a big deal about evidence, my point was about personal attacks instead of discussing ideas. You missed my points completely in your weird focus on an irrelevant point. No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. The most interesting thing for me from this exchange with you is what you have chosen to focus on in an otherwise interesting discussion. Once again you have missed the main points of the discussion No, Curtis, sorry. Your points were obvious. I was making a different point. while you pursue your own inexplicable agenda. Good luck with that. Not at all inexplicable. I've explained it at least three times now. It's also a point I've made before. You just don't want to deal with it.
[FairfieldLife] Hip Hop Violin
I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Strangest disaster of the 20th century
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-century/ Cool. Great mystery story, told well. Uncle John sounds like tremendous bathroom reading material.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM Wonderful. The thought that crossed my mind while watching it was: this kid's parents obviously didn't let her sit in front of the TV while she was growing up. In addition to violin lessons, they must have also sent her to ballet school. And we're talking quite a workload because to be a passable violinist, you have to practise at least 3 hours a day (and she's quite good). And the ballet had to take quite a bit out of her as well. And the fact that she's also into popular music suggests that her parents aren't sticks-in-the-mud but allow her to find her own way. She's a delight to see and hear.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
On May 25, 2007, at 10:25 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: utterly fallacious and misleading? Methinks you doth protest too much. It's just an innoculous way of saying the same thing to make it palatable to another audience. Methinks thou art brainwashed. Sorry, they are not the same thing, despite what your programming may tell you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
I'm a fan too. I'm glad they are going to extend it, I thought this was going to be the end of the show. From the last show it almost looks like a typical Hollywood glorification of people who believe things without evidence. John Lock is a big one for making assertions that he tries to sell by the force of his will. There was no reason for Jack not to make the call to the boat but both John and Ben tried to stop him giving no reasons or evidence. Now that his life is in shambles it looks like the believers were right! Thanks Hollywood, we should all just believe shit because someone enthusiastically asserts it. I agree with your analysis of Ben as a leader gone bad. The fact that John has heard Jacob's voice takes us out of the idea that Ben is just mad. There is some supernatural shit happening on this island for sure. I am digging it. Sorry to see the rocker boy die but that may free up Claire for us. Race ya down the beach to her lean-to! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ SPOILER ALERT -- if you have not been following the ABC television series called Lost, or have and have not seen the last episode of this season, or are even thinking of catching up to the series in the future, you might not want to read this. I will be revealing plot spoilers, and you probably don't want to know about them. Avoid the problem before it arises and click Next right now. :-) ] I just finished watching my pirated copy of the last episode of the season of Lost. And, having made a few posts today on the subject of whether the demonization of and suppression of doubt in a spiritual tradition is a good thing, I couldn't help but notice the parallels in Lost. Ben, the leader of the Others, is in Deep Shit. For years -- possibly decades -- he has been sys- tematically lying to the people he leads. He's been telling them that he is in communication with the mystical man behind the curtain on this whole Island Of Oz, Jacob. Jacob has got Reality down cold; he knows What's What, Spiritually, and so when Jacob speaks -- through Ben, of course -- they should not only listen, and obey, but they should never, ever question what Ben says. Because to do so would be to question Jacob, and thus What's What, Spiritually. In the last few episodes, it has been revealed that Jacob might not exist. And that Ben, who *invented* the dogma of never questioning what he says, and of doing without question and without hesitation everything he says, has been doing some pretty shady stuff to those who discover that Jacob might not exist, or even to those who discover that Ben is fallible. Whenever one of his own people discovers the truth about him, Ben has them killed or excom- municates them or kills them himself. And now, in this last episode, he's been *proven* fallible. EVERY ONE of his followers knows that he's fallible. And several of them now know that he has been systematically lying to them all along, telling them things that he knew were not true. One of them, who now knows this for himself, has even been ordered by Ben to kill two of his fellow Others, BECAUSE they have found out the truth about Ben, and can't be allowed to live and possibly tell others what they have found out. And Ben is freaking right out. He's on this mad dash across the island, trying to salvage his own repu- tation and trying to do something...anything...to regain the control he's had over the minds of his followers for decades. And natch, being the season closer, it's a cliffhanger. We in the audience are left not knowing whether he'll win out and reestablsh control or not. I'm not bothered overmuch by this. I have a sneakin' suspicion how it'll all turn out for Ben, and for his former followers, in the end. Whether it takes one more television season or ten to resolve every- thing, Ben's goin' down. He's toast. He's toast because of a spiritual truism, one that I think is as close to truth as anything I've ever heard on the planet. It was perhaps best expressed by Gandhi: When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it...always. Ben's goin' down because he forsook the ways of truth and love. He started believing that the means are justified by the end, and forgot that the means ARE the end. How you act determines your karma, not the supposed intent behind it. If you lie, you create the karma of a liar -- EVEN IF you've convinced yourself that you're lying for the right reasons. If you can only relate to other human beings if they believe every word you say, do exactly the things that you tell them to do, and never doubt you, even for a moment, then do you really love them? I'm not convinced you do. Love in my book involves offering
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin
This girl is such a delight. I thought every kid at MSAE was going to manifest this kind of excellence -- she's astoundingly accomplished at so young an age. But, her playing and dancing are the very least part of this video. It is her esteem that knocks me over. She loves what's happening inside her brain so much that it cannot be contained but must be radiated. In my eyes, she's pure, knows it, and thus there's no governor on her accelerator. She can just blast away knowing, trusting that flow of bliss, assured that her joie de vivre is authentic and brought to you without commercial (ego) interruption direct from the Absolute. Seeing her -- as proof that life can be good -- I should be filled with recriminations for my misspent life, but her energy leaves no room in my heart for any other emotion than You go, girl! What a thrill! Edg -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin
Adorable, pure energy, great spirit. Ah, were did our youth go? Now from one musician to another...hip hop is all about the beat. She has to learn to stay in the groove and play a little behind the beat to hang with the Black Eyed Peas who are at the top of their game. Overplaying through the beat loses what makes hip hop funky. Classical music is a difficult background for playing black music styles. You have to let the beat dominate and hold back all those runs that are so fun to play. It is almost the opposite place to put your attention for a classical player. What? I'm just too old to understand her and should just STFU? Anyway, you go girl, you'll find your own groove, that was a blast to watch! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This girl is such a delight. I thought every kid at MSAE was going to manifest this kind of excellence -- she's astoundingly accomplished at so young an age. But, her playing and dancing are the very least part of this video. It is her esteem that knocks me over. She loves what's happening inside her brain so much that it cannot be contained but must be radiated. In my eyes, she's pure, knows it, and thus there's no governor on her accelerator. She can just blast away knowing, trusting that flow of bliss, assured that her joie de vivre is authentic and brought to you without commercial (ego) interruption direct from the Absolute. Seeing her -- as proof that life can be good -- I should be filled with recriminations for my misspent life, but her energy leaves no room in my heart for any other emotion than You go, girl! What a thrill! Edg -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
More Lost spoilers ahead. Caveat lector. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fan too. I'm glad they are going to extend it, I thought this was going to be the end of the show. From the last show it almost looks like a typical Hollywood glorification of people who believe things without evidence. The Others certainly point in that direction. And, as you say below, Locke. John Lock is a big one for making assertions that he tries to sell by the force of his will. There was no reason for Jack not to make the call to the boat but both John and Ben tried to stop him giving no reasons or evidence. And both of them were convinced that they knew the truth, and that that gave them the right to impose their views on others, often through the use of lies and trickery. By their actions ye shall know them. Locke and Ben are pretty much cut from the same cloth, as far as I can tell. Now that his life is in shambles it looks like the believers were right! Thanks Hollywood, we should all just believe shit because someone enthusiastically asserts it. I'm not sure I get this. I didn't see that the writers were insinuating in any way that Ben was right in doing this. It seems to me that the writers have cast Ben as a Bad Guy who is starting to self-destruct under the weight of his own karma. Isn't the actor who plays him doing a great job, BTW? I mean, he's playing a basically unsympathetic part, but he can manage to be almost believable and charming and sane one moment, and then bonkers the next. Great role for him to land... I suspect we'll be seeing more of him once his tenure on the island is at an end. But Locke...there you have a point. Locke's more dangerous than Ben in some ways, because he seems almost rational in his irrational fanaticism. His intensity can almost suck you in. But he's got the same level of fanaticism going for him that Ben has, and more charisma. Given a choice of being led by either of them, I'd pick Ben in a New York Minute. Locke's cagey, and generally alert. He'd be hard to get around if he found himself in the position of tyrant. Ben's a wuss who desires strokes from those around him. One could stroke him for a while and pretend to play along, and then sneak up and bash him on the head with a bottle of Dharma Initiative brand beer. :-) I agree with your analysis of Ben as a leader gone bad. The fact that John has heard Jacob's voice takes us out of the idea that Ben is just mad. Right. Both heard *something*. But neither has any clue as to what it was. They've just created fantasies in their heads about what it was. And, on some level, both believe in those fantasies so strongly that they are willing to do Bad Things To Other People if they are convinced that these Bad Things are necessary. They're cut from the same cloth. There is some supernatural shit happening on this island for sure. I am digging it. Sorry to see the rocker boy die but that may free up Claire for us. Race ya down the beach to her lean-to! LOL. Yeah, Claire's the official Babe-And-A-Half on the island. Most of the other women have far too much baggage to consider developing even a fantasy relationship with, much less a real one. :-) But I don't know fersure that rocker boy has to die. It seems likely, because Dominic Monaghan, the actor, has a feature film in pre-production, and probably needs to be free to work on that. (I know that it's cheating to use real-life things like the IMDB to predict soap opera plots, but hey...if you've got access to the data, use it I always say.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [ SPOILER ALERT -- if you have not been following the ABC television series called Lost, or have and have not seen the last episode of this season, or are even thinking of catching up to the series in the future, you might not want to read this. I will be revealing plot spoilers, and you probably don't want to know about them. Avoid the problem before it arises and click Next right now. :-) ] I just finished watching my pirated copy of the last episode of the season of Lost. And, having made a few posts today on the subject of whether the demonization of and suppression of doubt in a spiritual tradition is a good thing, I couldn't help but notice the parallels in Lost. Ben, the leader of the Others, is in Deep Shit. For years -- possibly decades -- he has been sys- tematically lying to the people he leads. He's been telling them that he is in communication with the mystical man behind the curtain on this whole Island Of Oz, Jacob. Jacob has got Reality down cold; he knows What's What, Spiritually, and so when Jacob speaks -- through Ben, of course -- they should not only listen, and obey, but they should never, ever question what Ben says. Because to do so would be to question Jacob, and thus What's What,
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rama krishna aram_1903@ wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for peace that was snuffed out of their lives by the 2003 US invasion. He's playing a dangerous game. There are two powerful parties that do not want peace. They may not take kindly to an outsider getting in their way. I hope he wears a flak jacket under his usual dress. Uns. In my wildest dream, I wouldn't have thought someone formally a disciple of Maharishi's and now a Guru himself; It seems to me it took a lot of courage to engage in this part of the world, for sure. I'm definitely impressed. Perhaps if your time's not up yet, there's really nothing to worry about, really, right? Fear, it's all in the mind right. This thing about stress release: That too is all in the mind, yes? In a higher vibration, I guess there's nothing to fear, If you feel that in a way, you've already died, to the ego. r.g.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin
It was great, but no way was it improvised. A flow of bliss perhaps, but a carefully rehearsed one. John - Original Message - From: Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin This girl is such a delight. I thought every kid at MSAE was going to manifest this kind of excellence -- she's astoundingly accomplished at so young an age. But, her playing and dancing are the very least part of this video. It is her esteem that knocks me over. She loves what's happening inside her brain so much that it cannot be contained but must be radiated. In my eyes, she's pure, knows it, and thus there's no governor on her accelerator. She can just blast away knowing, trusting that flow of bliss, assured that her joie de vivre is authentic and brought to you without commercial (ego) interruption direct from the Absolute. Seeing her -- as proof that life can be good -- I should be filled with recriminations for my misspent life, but her energy leaves no room in my heart for any other emotion than You go, girl! What a thrill! Edg -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fan too. I'm glad they are going to extend it, I thought this was going to be the end of the show. From the last show it almost looks like a typical Hollywood glorification of people who believe things without evidence. ARH !!! Ignore anything I may have said about this episode that didn't quite fit right with you having seen it. I've just heard that the episode was two hours long, and I only got the first half of it. Back to the drawing boards before I can comment further on some of the plot points you mentioned that I didn't seem to understand. ARH !!! (And not in a good Pirate way.) John Lock is a big one for making assertions that he tries to sell by the force of his will. There was no reason for Jack not to make the call to the boat but both John and Ben tried to stop him giving no reasons or evidence. Now that his life is in shambles it looks like the believers were right! Thanks Hollywood, we should all just believe shit because someone enthusiastically asserts it. I agree with your analysis of Ben as a leader gone bad. The fact that John has heard Jacob's voice takes us out of the idea that Ben is just mad. There is some supernatural shit happening on this island for sure. I am digging it. Sorry to see the rocker boy die but that may free up Claire for us. Race ya down the beach to her lean-to! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [ SPOILER ALERT -- if you have not been following the ABC television series called Lost, or have and have not seen the last episode of this season, or are even thinking of catching up to the series in the future, you might not want to read this. I will be revealing plot spoilers, and you probably don't want to know about them. Avoid the problem before it arises and click Next right now. :-) ] I just finished watching my pirated copy of the last episode of the season of Lost. And, having made a few posts today on the subject of whether the demonization of and suppression of doubt in a spiritual tradition is a good thing, I couldn't help but notice the parallels in Lost. Ben, the leader of the Others, is in Deep Shit. For years -- possibly decades -- he has been sys- tematically lying to the people he leads. He's been telling them that he is in communication with the mystical man behind the curtain on this whole Island Of Oz, Jacob. Jacob has got Reality down cold; he knows What's What, Spiritually, and so when Jacob speaks -- through Ben, of course -- they should not only listen, and obey, but they should never, ever question what Ben says. Because to do so would be to question Jacob, and thus What's What, Spiritually. In the last few episodes, it has been revealed that Jacob might not exist. And that Ben, who *invented* the dogma of never questioning what he says, and of doing without question and without hesitation everything he says, has been doing some pretty shady stuff to those who discover that Jacob might not exist, or even to those who discover that Ben is fallible. Whenever one of his own people discovers the truth about him, Ben has them killed or excom- municates them or kills them himself. And now, in this last episode, he's been *proven* fallible. EVERY ONE of his followers knows that he's fallible. And several of them now know that he has been systematically lying to them all along, telling them things that he knew were not true. One of them, who now knows this for himself, has even been ordered by Ben to kill two of his fellow Others, BECAUSE they have found out the truth about Ben, and can't be allowed to live and possibly tell others what they have found out. And Ben is freaking right out. He's on this mad dash across the island, trying to salvage his own repu- tation and trying to do something...anything...to regain the control he's had over the minds of his followers for decades. And natch, being the season closer, it's a cliffhanger. We in the audience are left not knowing whether he'll win out and reestablsh control or not. I'm not bothered overmuch by this. I have a sneakin' suspicion how it'll all turn out for Ben, and for his former followers, in the end. Whether it takes one more television season or ten to resolve every- thing, Ben's goin' down. He's toast. He's toast because of a spiritual truism, one that I think is as close to truth as anything I've ever heard on the planet. It was perhaps best expressed by Gandhi: When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it...always. Ben's goin' down because he forsook the ways of truth
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fan too. I'm glad they are going to extend it, I thought this was going to be the end of the show. From the last show it almost looks like a typical Hollywood glorification of people who believe things without evidence. ARH !!! Ignore anything I may have said about this episode that didn't quite fit right with you having seen it. I've just heard that the episode was two hours long, and I only got the first half of it. Back to the drawing boards before I can comment further on some of the plot points you mentioned that I didn't seem to understand. ARH !!! (And not in a good Pirate way.) snip Good thing you mentioned that as I was planning to make some comments VERY MUCH based on the second hour. :) Also having an HD copy of the show I was able to freeze the frame where Jack looks at the newspaper at the beginning and see exactly what he was looking at. Nuff said for now ;) You should also locate the Lost Answers show that played last week as well as before this weeks finale. It's a very interesting discussion from the producers on how they do the show. They really don't know where the show is going but unlike 24 are more talented and skilled at producing a show that way. They take unanswered questions they introduced even by accident in the series and create episodes from those answering them. They treat the show as a mystery and I think it harkins back to the way old radio mysteries were done (very much on the fly). The last few episodes have been a bit Lost meets Las Vegas with Marsha Thomasson from the latter show's first couple of seasons showing up and I thought could Mike Cannon be far behind? And there he was in the finale! I kept expecting him to drop from the serious doctor character into some of his typical LV humor.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin
I used to play piano very well. I could riff endlessly in a way that engaged my heart, but it wasn't great music in the least. But I was loving it like a warm bath. This girl's skills and her obvious prepping for this session are not where I'm wanting to put a gold star. I'm not saying she's spontaneously professionally jamming with the Peas. She's not ready for prime time -- though she'd kick ass if American Idol had a version for instrumentalists. Nope, what gets me about this girl is her openheartedness. She's just seeming to me to be there and not thinking about what others might think of her skills, her looks, or her personality. She's beautifully attired with innocence. Sermon on the Mount: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was great, but no way was it improvised. A flow of bliss perhaps, but a carefully rehearsed one. John - Original Message - From: Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hip Hop Violin This girl is such a delight. I thought every kid at MSAE was going to manifest this kind of excellence -- she's astoundingly accomplished at so young an age. But, her playing and dancing are the very least part of this video. It is her esteem that knocks me over. She loves what's happening inside her brain so much that it cannot be contained but must be radiated. In my eyes, she's pure, knows it, and thus there's no governor on her accelerator. She can just blast away knowing, trusting that flow of bliss, assured that her joie de vivre is authentic and brought to you without commercial (ego) interruption direct from the Absolute. Seeing her -- as proof that life can be good -- I should be filled with recriminations for my misspent life, but her energy leaves no room in my heart for any other emotion than You go, girl! What a thrill! Edg -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: I have pretty much zero appreciation for hip hop, but I *loved* this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=janXm1thRhM
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rama krishna aram_1903@ wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to...[snip] Before Team America showed up, Iraq was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles. So I can infer from you response that if a country falls short of the above flowery scenario, it is OK to then bomb and strafe the hell out of their citizenry? Interesting demonic approach...:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thing about stress release: That too is all in the mind, yes? In a higher vibration, I guess there's nothing to fear, Well: dvitiiyaad vai bhayaM bhavati!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Home Loan Alternative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: This is totally off the topic so I expect some really, good off the topic responses. I bought a house two years ago here in beautiful Colorado and throughout that time, the more I thought about the loan, the madder I started getting, specifically, paying all the interest up front. I borrowed a little over $100K and came up with the rest. The total cost of the house was $233,000. What these banks do is charge you all the interest up front. The banks are not front-loading interest. They are charging interest on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, they are charging interest on the outstanding principal. No more, no less. As the principal declines, so does the interest on the remaining principal. This is true for short term loans only, not 30 year fixed loans. It appears on my statements that the interest IS frontloaded for example on a loan of $117,000, for two years now, I've paid $20,000 in iterest and $3000 in principle. The $900 a month I'm paying is paying off mainly interest first for the first ten years (approximately). If I were to increase the principle amount of payback, they would recalculate the interest and it's true that a higher percentage of the principle would be coveredt. Mark http://www.refinance-refinance.net/2006/04/10/mortgages-for-dummies- mortgage-term-length.html For example, in the last boom phase of the real estate market, interest only loans were prevalent --- at least they were interest only for the first 5 years or so of the loan. Thus, for a $100,000 principal, $6,000 of interst would be paid (assuming annual payments -- a simplification for this example.) For five years, no principal is paid off. On the other had, a 30 year loan requires / allows the payment of the same interest as above, plus some repyament of principal, structured so that the full principal is paid off in 30 years. Again following the same principle, that interest is charged on the outstanding principal in each payment period. A 15 year loan pays back more principal each payment period. A 5 year loan even more so. If you want to pay less interest, simply pre-pay down your principal each month. If the mortgage payment is $1000, pay that, plus $500/ month principal paydown. You will end up shortening the term of the loan -- and end up paying less interest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?- Thank you, Rick, for setting limits -
Rick, Thank you for limiting the number of FFL posts to 5 per day per FFL contributor. I have observed FFL since its 2001 beginning, and I enjoy visiting FFL more now than before the limits because the content of posts is now more focused, and I think the tone of the exchanges between various persons of different perspectives has become more respectful. Or so it seems I hope the limiting process is sufficiently automated. I enjoy seeing you step into the ring, as though you're the referee at a boxing match, to inform combatants about the limits. But I wonder how you're holding up in that role. If the limit monitoring process is less automated than it might be, I hope it can become automated and ease the demand on your time and attention. In any event, THANK YOU, RICK for 5 post / day / contributor limit. -mainstream --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm seeing 38 posts for Judy and 37 for Shemp, and we've got one day to go. Yahoo has been sending some duplicate emails, so if you're certain of a more accurate count, you may be within the limit, but you must be getting close. Rick Archer President SearchSummit http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmapaddr=1108+S.+B+St.csz=Fairfield% 2C+IA+52556-3805country=us 1108 S. B St. Fairfield, IA 52556-3805 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: fax: Skype ID: http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signatureTo=641-472-9336Email=r [EMAIL PROTECTED] 641-472-9336 914-470-9336 Rick_Archer https://www.plaxo.com/add_me? u=25769982909v0=356483k0=1251699766v1=35648 4k1=804482755src=client_sig_212_1_card_joininvite=1 Always have my latest info http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig Want a signature like this?
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ He's playing a dangerous game. There are two powerful parties that do not want peace. They may not take kindly to an outsider getting in their way. I hope he wears a flak jacket under his usual dress. Uns. Perhaps if your time's not up yet, there's really nothing to worry about, really, right? Wrong. Most people who want to stay alive look left and right before crossing the road, right? If he misjudges the situation and maybe his level of consciuosness, then he will return in a box. Uns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert Gimbel babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ He's playing a dangerous game. There are two powerful parties that do not want peace. They may not take kindly to an outsider getting in their way. I hope he wears a flak jacket under his usual dress. Uns. Perhaps if your time's not up yet, there's really nothing to worry about, really, right? Wrong. Most people who want to stay alive look left and right before crossing the road, right? If he misjudges the situation and maybe his level of consciuosness, then he will return in a box. So will you. So will I. So will everyone reading and writing to this forum. BFD. It's not about where you end up IMO -- i.e., wormfood -- it's about how you lived your life getting there. Sounds to me as if SSRS has chosen to live his life on the front lines of the heart. More power to him for having made that decision, wherever it takes him. P.S. Still haven't been able to download the rest of the season finale of Lost. I look forward to doing so, and to watching it, and to finding out whether my initial reactions -- having seen only half of it -- are borne out by where the writers took things in the second half. Such fun. What is not to like about a cliffhanger like this, eh? 35 and out. Jai and away. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a fan too. I'm glad they are going to extend it, I thought this was going to be the end of the show. From the last show it almost looks like a typical Hollywood glorification of people who believe things without evidence. ARH !!! Ignore anything I may have said about this episode that didn't quite fit right with you having seen it. I've just heard that the episode was two hours long, and I only got the first half of it. Back to the drawing boards before I can comment further on some of the plot points you mentioned that I didn't seem to understand. ARH !!! (And not in a good Pirate way.) snip Good thing you mentioned that as I was planning to make some comments VERY MUCH based on the second hour. :) Also having an HD copy of the show I was able to freeze the frame where Jack looks at the newspaper at the beginning and see exactly what he was looking at. Nuff said for now ;) You should also locate the Lost Answers show that played last week as well as before this weeks finale. It's a very interesting discussion from the producers on how they do the show. They really don't know where the show is going but unlike 24 are more talented and skilled at producing a show that way. They take unanswered questions they introduced even by accident in the series and create episodes from those answering them. They treat the show as a mystery and I think it harkins back to the way old radio mysteries were done (very much on the fly). The last few episodes have been a bit Lost meets Las Vegas with Marsha Thomasson from the latter show's first couple of seasons showing up and I thought could Mike Cannon be far behind? And there he was in the finale! I kept expecting him to drop from the serious doctor character into some of his typical LV humor. Now that you've seen the 2nd part of the finale you saw that Jack attended a funeral where no one else showed up. That was what was in the clipping he tore off. The obits were on the left column. I froze that frame and though I couldn't make out the name the number of letters were enough to be John Locke. Which makes sense. We'll have to see. Of course misdirects are very much the art of screenwriting. Maybe next season will take place mainland and with some flashbacks to the island. It was probably getting expensive to shoot in Hawaii and it may have made it difficult for the cast members to take other projects. I hear episode numbers have been cut to 18, I think. Sometimes I'm surprised the networks don't just do 6 or 8 since that is often what the BBC does with success. Of course we also had a little bit of 24 meets Lost as the brunette in the underwater place was on 24 a couple seasons in case you wondered where you had seen her before. Speaking of actors showing up on several series at the same time, Jack's sister-in-law on 24 also plays the politician's wife on Heroes which runs at the same time. :) BTW, Heroes topped the ratings over 24 for the finale. As for Ben guru thing I think the writers were going after his father issues that we saw in the episode that traced his arrival at the island with his father aptly played by Jon Gries. So we have a psychological archetype of someone neglected by his father and developing into a tyrant. I think the point of the finale was that Ben's luck ran out and no one would further believe him. Do you think that MMY had father issues? I don't, I just think he exploited Indian culture to his advantage which of course many Indians do and don't think much about it. Good gurus like the one I am studying with are more like I've learned some stuff I'd be happy to show you. There are no control issues. Movie tips: The Holy Mountain and El Topo have been released on DVD and a very nice job of restoration done. I purchased The Holy Mountain as someone I knew back in the 1960's has a role in it. I rented El Topo for this weekend as I have never seen it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
---Vaj, I know you're heavily into tradition but there's something called new knowledge; but ultimately, the idea is to seek the truth, whether from tradition, authorities, Scriptures, one's own experience, heresay evidence;...better yet, everything together with one's own experience at the top of the list. This separates the true Gnostics from the TB. I see no reason to separate karma from stress and say it's only karma. Why not get rid of the bad karma AND the stress, on all levels. It's not an either/or proposition, unless one's Guru is only adept at helping you one one level and not another. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, that the TM myth of physical stress release from the physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is the pranic body that evolves. I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, your's, and Muktananda's. Whether it's the pranic body or vajra body (although I'm not sure what vajra body is), isn't that still on the relative level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. Karma is what tradition would state, not stress. Generally one would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Muktananda just touches on some basics, but does give an idea of what is involved.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
--- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rama krishna aram_1903@ wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for peace that was snuffed out of their lives by the 2003 US invasion. He's playing a dangerous game. There are two powerful parties that do not want peace. They may not take kindly to an outsider getting in their way. I hope he wears a flak jacket under his usual dress. Uns. In my wildest dream, I wouldn't have thought someone formally a disciple of Maharishi's and now a Guru himself; It seems to me it took a lot of courage to engage in this part of the world, for sure. I'm definitely impressed. Perhaps if your time's not up yet, there's really nothing to worry about, really, right? Fear, it's all in the mind right. This thing about stress release: That too is all in the mind, yes? In a higher vibration, I guess there's nothing to fear, If you feel that in a way, you've already died, to the ego. r.g. His darshan is extremely powerful. No violence occurs around him. He's gone to very violent parts of India and he has absolutely no worries and tells those around him to let go of all fear too. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
[FairfieldLife] Couldn't have said it better myself...
http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Webcast Donovan concert
The following three sessions of the David Lynch Weekend at Maharishi University of Management will be webcast live at LynchWeekend.org Session I Saturday Morning, May 26 9:30 9:45 am Robert Roth, event moderator Introduction to the weekend 9:45 10:45 am John Hagelin, renowned quantum physicist Quantum physics and pure consciousness the discovery of the unified field 10:45 11:30 am David Lynch, celebrated filmmaker Catching the big fish where do the biggest ideas come from? 11:30 12:00 noon Donovan, legendary singer/songwriter Singing, songwriting, and the creative process Session II Saturday Evening, May 26 8:00 9:30 pm Donovan Live concert
Re: [FairfieldLife] War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
Balls of steel Love it. --- rama krishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ravaged by a violence they had never known before, despairing Iraqis Wednesday turned to Indian spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar for peace that was snuffed out of their lives by the 2003 US invasion. Around 80 Shia and tribal leaders, mostly dressed in traditional Arab gear, listened attentively to Ravi Shankar at the office of a Shia group in Baghdad as he pleaded with them to end all killings.According to his Art of Living Foundation, Ravi Shankar also met separately a group of grieving Iraqi women widowed by the unending insurgency and Shia-Sunni conflict.While one tribal leader blamed the US for their suffering, a Red Crescent official told the guru to bring into Iraqi lives 'the art of living since they only know the art of dying', a spokesperson for Ravi Shankar told IANS over phone from Bangalore. And Prime Minister Nouri al Malaki, who has invited Ravi Shankar as an ambassador of peace, urged him late Tuesday, shortly after his arrival, to help reform prisoners in Baghdad's jails through yoga and meditation.Art of Living officials said they - and also Ravi Shankar - were overwhelmed by the response to their guru's three-day visit to Iraq.'The response is simply terrific,' a spokesperson said, quoting reports received from Baghdad. 'The people of Iraq want peace and deserve peace.'It is the first time an Indian guru or for that matter any non-Islamic spiritual leader of some standing has forayed into Baghdad, a once serene city that now knows only suicide bombings, firings and fratricidal killings.With the American occupation turning Iraq upside down, having killed over 655,000 people and wounding many more, Iraqis are desperate to regain the stable life they were long used to. The Art of Living Foundation, which enjoys a vast following in India and abroad, says the yoga, meditation and breathing techniques it advocates are powerful weapons than can kill anxiety and depression that have gripped Iraq.Seated on a raised platform and speaking in English with an Arabic interpreter in attendance, Ravi Shankar referred to Mahatma Gandhi and urged Shia and tribal leaders: 'Give non-violence a try, give peace a chance.'This was the message he conveyed to everyone, his aides said.Ravi Shankar flew into Baghdad from Amman Tuesday. His entourage took two and a half hours to cover the short distance from the Baghdad airport to his hotel in the US-protected Green Zone area.The Art of Living Foundation, which has been active in Iraq for four years and has many Iraqi volunteers, runs prisoner reform programmes in several cities including New Delhi.Earlier, Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit met Ravi Shankar in Amman, where the guru presided over a meeting of 1,000 people eager to learn yoga, meditation and breathing techniques.Ravi Shankar is to visit the Art of Living trauma relief centre in Baghdad and then return to Amman where he will talk at the University of Jordan and attend a VIP reception thrown in his honour.Since 2003, the Art of Living and its sister concern, The International Association for Human Values, have been working under difficult circumstances in Iraq to help people overcome their deep pain and suffering.The volunteers have also conducted trauma relief courses in various parts of Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Medicines, food and clothes have also been offered. At a time when most NGOs have been compelled to evacuate their volunteers from Iraq following violence and kidnappings, Art of Living has stayed put. Last year, 43 Iraqis, mostly women, graduated to be Art of Living teachers. So far, 5,000 Iraqis have undergone the Art of Living trauma relief workshops apart from attending ayurvedic training camps. Ravi Shankar's followers have also initiated a women empowerment project under which Iraqi women get vocational training such as tailoring and computer skills. Over 500 women have benefited from the programme. This story can be read at this link: http://in.news.yahoo.com/070523/43/6g5kr.html Picture of His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki can be viewed here: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/23look.htm Regards Rama Krishna - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mailp=summer+activities+for+kidscs=bz
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: War-hit Iraq turns to Indian guru for some peace
On May 25, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Peter wrote: His darshan is extremely powerful. No violence occurs around him. He's gone to very violent parts of India and he has absolutely no worries and tells those around him to let go of all fear too. Yeah, just let him come to Fairfield--we'd show him! Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?- Thank you, Rick, for setting limits -
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mainstream20016 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:17 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?- Thank you, Rick, for setting limits - Rick, Thank you for limiting the number of FFL posts to 5 per day per FFL contributor. I have observed FFL since its 2001 beginning, and I enjoy visiting FFL more now than before the limits because the content of posts is now more focused, and I think the tone of the exchanges between various persons of different perspectives has become more respectful. Or so it seems I hope the limiting process is sufficiently automated. I enjoy seeing you step into the ring, as though you're the referee at a boxing match, to inform combatants about the limits. But I wonder how you're holding up in that role. If the limit monitoring process is less automated than it might be, I hope it can become automated and ease the demand on your time and attention. In any event, THANK YOU, RICK for 5 post / day / contributor limit. -mainstream It's pretty easy to monitor, because as long as Yahoo doesn't send me multiple emails, I can easily sort my FFL folder in Outlook by author and see a tally of how many posts each person has done. Everyone is respectful of the limits, except Shemp, who posted 45 times this week while I wasn't paying attention. So I put him on moderated status. Next week he will be limited to 25.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Home Loan Alternative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: What these banks do is charge you all the interest up front. The banks are not front-loading interest. They are charging interest on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, they are charging interest on the outstanding principal. No more, no less. As the principal declines, so does the interest on the remaining principal. This is true for short term loans only, not 30 year fixed loans. Not true. The principle is the same. If you have a teaser low interest loan for the first 5 years, or an ARM, or other more complex loan, then its a slightly different structure -- but the principle is the same -- you pay interest on the outstanding principal. You and the author of the link you gave appear to feel that because initial interest payments are more than principal in the first years of the mortgage, that it is front loaded. Thats an odd definition of front-loaded. Front loaded traditionally means paying MORE interst than is warranted by what is due on remaining principal. Create a payment and interest stream in Excel or Google SS and you will understand whats going on. I have put an excel ss that mimics your case in the FFL files Service. Actual interest does not sink to the level of principal until year 21. But that is NOT front loading in the traditional finance sense of the word. It appears on my statements that the interest IS frontloaded for example on a loan of $117,000, for two years now, I've paid $20,000 in iterest and $3000 in principle. The $900 a month I'm paying is paying off mainly interest first for the first ten years (approximately). If I were to increase the principle amount of payback, they would recalculate the interest and it's true that a higher percentage of the principle would be coveredt. Mark http://www.refinance-refinance.net/2006/04/10/mortgages-for-dummies- mortgage-term-length.html For example, in the last boom phase of the real estate market, interest only loans were prevalent --- at least they were interest only for the first 5 years or so of the loan. Thus, for a $100,000 principal, $6,000 of interst would be paid (assuming annual payments -- a simplification for this example.) For five years, no principal is paid off. On the other had, a 30 year loan requires / allows the payment of the same interest as above, plus some repyament of principal, structured so that the full principal is paid off in 30 years. Again following the same principle, that interest is charged on the outstanding principal in each payment period. A 15 year loan pays back more principal each payment period. A 5 year loan even more so. If you want to pay less interest, simply pre-pay down your principal each month. If the mortgage payment is $1000, pay that, plus $500/ month principal paydown. You will end up shortening the term of the loan -- and end up paying less interest.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Home Loan Alternative
Here is the file link http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Local%20Services/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: What these banks do is charge you all the interest up front. The banks are not front-loading interest. They are charging interest on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, they are charging interest on the outstanding principal. No more, no less. As the principal declines, so does the interest on the remaining principal. This is true for short term loans only, not 30 year fixed loans. Not true. The principle is the same. If you have a teaser low interest loan for the first 5 years, or an ARM, or other more complex loan, then its a slightly different structure -- but the principle is the same -- you pay interest on the outstanding principal. You and the author of the link you gave appear to feel that because initial interest payments are more than principal in the first years of the mortgage, that it is front loaded. Thats an odd definition of front-loaded. Front loaded traditionally means paying MORE interst than is warranted by what is due on remaining principal. Create a payment and interest stream in Excel or Google SS and you will understand whats going on. I have put an excel ss that mimics your case in the FFL files Service. Actual interest does not sink to the level of principal until year 21. But that is NOT front loading in the traditional finance sense of the word. It appears on my statements that the interest IS frontloaded for example on a loan of $117,000, for two years now, I've paid $20,000 in iterest and $3000 in principle. The $900 a month I'm paying is paying off mainly interest first for the first ten years (approximately). If I were to increase the principle amount of payback, they would recalculate the interest and it's true that a higher percentage of the principle would be coveredt. Mark http://www.refinance-refinance.net/2006/04/10/mortgages-for-dummies- mortgage-term-length.html For example, in the last boom phase of the real estate market, interest only loans were prevalent --- at least they were interest only for the first 5 years or so of the loan. Thus, for a $100,000 principal, $6,000 of interst would be paid (assuming annual payments -- a simplification for this example.) For five years, no principal is paid off. On the other had, a 30 year loan requires / allows the payment of the same interest as above, plus some repyament of principal, structured so that the full principal is paid off in 30 years. Again following the same principle, that interest is charged on the outstanding principal in each payment period. A 15 year loan pays back more principal each payment period. A 5 year loan even more so. If you want to pay less interest, simply pre-pay down your principal each month. If the mortgage payment is $1000, pay that, plus $500/ month principal paydown. You will end up shortening the term of the loan -- and end up paying less interest.
[FairfieldLife] Escher's Relativity in LEGO
- http://www.andrewlipson.com/escher/relativity.html neat!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Home Loan Alternative
Here is the Excel file http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Local%20Services/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: What these banks do is charge you all the interest up front. The banks are not front-loading interest. They are charging interest on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, they are charging interest on the outstanding principal. No more, no less. As the principal declines, so does the interest on the remaining principal. This is true for short term loans only, not 30 year fixed loans. Not true. The principle is the same. If you have a teaser low interest loan for the first 5 years, or an ARM, or other more complex loan, then its a slightly different structure -- but the principle is the same -- you pay interest on the outstanding principal. You and the author of the link you gave appear to feel that because initial interest payments are more than principal in the first years of the mortgage, that it is front loaded. Thats an odd definition of front-loaded. Front loaded traditionally means paying MORE interst than is warranted by what is due on remaining principal. Create a payment and interest stream in Excel or Google SS and you will understand whats going on. I have put an excel ss that mimics your case in the FFL files Service. Actual interest does not sink to the level of principal until year 21. But that is NOT front loading in the traditional finance sense of the word. It appears on my statements that the interest IS frontloaded for example on a loan of $117,000, for two years now, I've paid $20,000 in iterest and $3000 in principle. The $900 a month I'm paying is paying off mainly interest first for the first ten years (approximately). If I were to increase the principle amount of payback, they would recalculate the interest and it's true that a higher percentage of the principle would be coveredt. Mark http://www.refinance-refinance.net/2006/04/10/mortgages-for-dummies- mortgage-term-length.html For example, in the last boom phase of the real estate market, interest only loans were prevalent --- at least they were interest only for the first 5 years or so of the loan. Thus, for a $100,000 principal, $6,000 of interst would be paid (assuming annual payments -- a simplification for this example.) For five years, no principal is paid off. On the other had, a 30 year loan requires / allows the payment of the same interest as above, plus some repyament of principal, structured so that the full principal is paid off in 30 years. Again following the same principle, that interest is charged on the outstanding principal in each payment period. A 15 year loan pays back more principal each payment period. A 5 year loan even more so. If you want to pay less interest, simply pre-pay down your principal each month. If the mortgage payment is $1000, pay that, plus $500/ month principal paydown. You will end up shortening the term of the loan -- and end up paying less interest.
[FairfieldLife] Into the Great Silence
http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?directoryname=intogreatsilence Synopsis Nestled deep in the postcard-perfect French Alps, the Grande Chartreuse is considered one of the world's most ascetic monasteries. In 1984, German filmmaker Philip Gröning wrote to the Carthusian order for permission to make a documentary about them. They said they would get back to him. Sixteen years later, they were ready. Gröning, sans crew or artificial lighting, lived in the monks' quarters for six monthsfilming their daily prayers, tasks, rituals and rare outdoor excursions. This transcendent, closely observed film seeks to embody a monastery, rather than simply depict oneit has no score, no voiceover and no archival footage. What remains is stunningly elemental: time, space and light. One of the most mesmerizing and poetic chronicles of spirituality ever created, INTO GREAT SILENCE dissolves the border between screen and audience with a total immersion into the hush of monastic life. More meditation than documentary, it's a rare, transformative theatrical experience for all.
[FairfieldLife] My Memorial Day Video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fxHbirAKKR4
[FairfieldLife] Recent journalistic FF
Hi..., For a pulse on things, these are worth reading. Skim the 'procon' responses through their threads too. Pity, the Poor Pundit, April 3007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138226 Invincible America Course, April 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138230 Save the Dome, send money http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/137925 Sucession TMorg aire-apparent, Girish http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138311 With Best Regards, Doug in FF oh, add this to your reading list: Invincible America: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/137558
[FairfieldLife] Re: Home Loan Alternative
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie msilver1951@ wrote: What these banks do is charge you all the interest up front. The banks are not front-loading interest. They are charging interest on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, they are charging interest on the outstanding principal. No more, no less. As the principal declines, so does the interest on the remaining principal. This is true for short term loans only, not 30 year fixed loans. Not true. The principle is the same. If you have a teaser low interest loan for the first 5 years, or an ARM, or other more complex loan, then its a slightly different structure -- but the principle is the same -- you pay interest on the outstanding principal. You and the author of the link you gave appear to feel that because initial interest payments are more than principal in the first years of the mortgage, that it is front loaded. Thats an odd definition of front-loaded. Front loaded traditionally means paying MORE interst than is warranted by what is due on remaining principal. Create a payment and interest stream in Excel or Google SS and you will understand whats going on. I have put an excel ss that mimics your case in the FFL files Service. Actual interest does not sink to the level of principal until year 21. But that is NOT front loading in the traditional finance sense of the word. It appears on my statements that the interest IS frontloaded for example on a loan of $117,000, for two years now, I've paid $20,000 in iterest and $3000 in principle. The $900 a month I'm paying is paying off mainly interest first for the first ten years (approximately). If I were to increase the principle amount of payback, they would recalculate the interest and it's true that a higher percentage of the principle would be coveredt. Mark http://www.refinance-refinance.net/2006/04/10/mortgages-for- dummies- mortgage-term-length.html For example, in the last boom phase of the real estate market, interest only loans were prevalent --- at least they were interest only for the first 5 years or so of the loan. Thus, for a $100,000 principal, $6,000 of interst would be paid (assuming annual payments -- a simplification for this example.) For five years, no principal is paid off. On the other had, a 30 year loan requires / allows the payment of the same interest as above, plus some repyament of principal, structured so that the full principal is paid off in 30 years. Again following the same principle, that interest is charged on the outstanding principal in each payment period. A 15 year loan pays back more principal each payment period. A 5 year loan even more so. If you want to pay less interest, simply pre-pay down your principal each month. If the mortgage payment is $1000, pay that, plus $500/ month principal paydown. You will end up shortening the term of the loan -- and end up paying less interest. I am really astounded that anyone would get a loan without understanding the legal loan docs or having an amortization schedule. this stuff is very basic math and simple excel document stuff. Mortgage lenders are required to give you a truth in lending statement. Anyone who gets a loan, signs a slew of legal docs, promissory notes etc. If you are mature enough to sign for a loan, it seems that you should know what it means. I am kind of tired of the big wa about loans. Read before you sign. ASk questions before getting the loan. This is very very basic stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?- Thank you, Rick, for setting limits -
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mainstream20016 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:17 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Overposting?- Thank you, Rick, for setting limits - Rick, Thank you for limiting the number of FFL posts to 5 per day per FFL contributor. I have observed FFL since its 2001 beginning, and I enjoy visiting FFL more now than before the limits because the content of posts is now more focused, and I think the tone of the exchanges between various persons of different perspectives has become more respectful. Or so it seems I hope the limiting process is sufficiently automated. I enjoy seeing you step into the ring, as though you're the referee at a boxing match, to inform combatants about the limits. But I wonder how you're holding up in that role. If the limit monitoring process is less automated than it might be, I hope it can become automated and ease the demand on your time and attention. In any event, THANK YOU, RICK for 5 post / day / contributor limit. -mainstream It's pretty easy to monitor, because as long as Yahoo doesn't send me multiple emails, I can easily sort my FFL folder in Outlook by author and see a tally of how many posts each person has done. Everyone is respectful of the limits, except Shemp, who posted 45 times this week while I wasn't paying attention. So I put him on moderated status. Next week he will be limited to 25. I was on affirmative action status this week, so I was entitled to 50.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A different explanation of stress release
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt qntmpkt@ wrote: ---Yea...Swami Muktananda - it appears from available evidence that he was quite adept at molesting underage Daughters of his disciples. Yes, so I've heard. Still a nice insight, and I appreciate Shemp's posting it. Looks like a mismatch between speech and action! Yes, that might really bother me if I were expecting any particular action/speech from him :-) He initiated me into Shaktipat in 1980. (dug his fingers into my eyeballs and a brilliant image of himself appeared in my visual field). Interesting! Were you a steady TM-er at the time? If so, how did you justify straying? Among many other Master-flavors, I used to channel his shaktipat-energies in 1982 or so. BAM! Very dynamic, but I quit tuning into his channel when I found my heart was feeling pained and strained afterward from the excess voltage running through it :-) I have always found the following photograph of Muktananda's master, Nityananda, most remarkable. Of all the saints' photographs I have seen over the years, this one has the most profound effect upon me: http://www.nityanandainstitute.org/images/jpg/nit_teaching.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mindless Devotion, Doubt, and the Season Finale of Lost
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you've seen the 2nd part of the finale you saw that Jack attended a funeral where no one else showed up. That was what was in the clipping he tore off. The obits were on the left column. I froze that frame and though I couldn't make out the name the number of letters were enough to be John Locke. Which makes sense. We'll have to see. Of course misdirects are very much the art of screenwriting. Indeed. Thanks for that piece of information. Now that I've seen it all, I get what Curtis was talking about. One *could* see it that way. I don't, not yet. I still think that Ben and Locke are the craziest and most dangerous mofos on the island, and I don't necessarily see that the writers were saying, Trust them, because they have visions. Have faith in people like this. As far as I can tell, this prime-time soap opera could still go pretty much anywhere. A lot like the future itself. :-) I do like the quantum-mechanical, let's-see-if- we-can-find-another-path-through-the-alternate- pasts-and-thus-generate-an-alternate-future thang, though. I'm looking forward to seeing how they resolve all this, especially after hearing from you how they write the series, as an ongoing work in progress, with no fixed future. Maybe next season will take place mainland and with some flashbacks to the island. It was probably getting expensive to shoot in Hawaii... The Lost pilot was the most expensive TV pilot ever filmed. ...and it may have made it difficult for the cast members to take other projects. True. I hear episode numbers have been cut to 18, I think. Sometimes I'm surprised the networks don't just do 6 or 8 since that is often what the BBC does with success. I kinda like the results of having more episodes to play with character development. Later...
