[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Seeking Sanskrit Translation'

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Was wondering if anyone would have the Sanskrit translation for 
the Pantanjali Sutra for 'Knowledge of Past Lives',
>   'Lattent Impressions', is the english way of saying it, so.
>   Anyway, thanks to I,me, mine, and all the interesting seekers of 
wisdom,
>   who this forum of knowledge.
>   R.G. Verona, Wisconsin.
> 

I guess you mean III 18:

saMskaarasaakSaatkaraNaat puurvajaatijñaanam.

(saMskaara-saakSaat-karaNaat puurva-jaati-jñaanam.)

>
> -
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s 
user panel and lay it on us.
>

[FairfieldLife] 'Seeking Sanskrit Translation'

[Robert]

Was wondering if anyone would have the Sanskrit translation for the Pantanjali 
Sutra for 'Knowledge of Past Lives',
  'Lattent Impressions', is the english way of saying it, so.
  Anyway, thanks to I,me, mine, and all the interesting seekers of wisdom,
  who this forum of knowledge.
  R.G. Verona, Wisconsin.

   
-
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel 
and lay it on us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[Ron]

HP: I will do my best to respond. If you want insight into my Guru by reading, 
then all of 
what Ramana has to say is the same my Guru would say. My Guru's last guru that 
apointed 
my Guru as Guru, was commissioned to be a guru by Poonjaji. In addition, my 
Guru's Guru 
had 3 tantric masters and his father was an enlightened being


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> > The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru 
> will say "this one" 
> 
> Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say "I'. Saying "this one" all 
> the time is ridiculous!..

HP: My guru does not say "this one" all the time, and I am sure that all the 
gurus you 
mentioned dont say "I" all the time either
> 
> > replacing the word "I", the other Gurus in my path do the same. My 
> Guru said that 
> > speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the "me" 
> is gone and there is 
> 
> Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor.

HP: Considering that my Guru is enlightened and has brought 2 others this past 
year so far 
to enlightenment, referring to my Guru as absurd is not only absurd but VERY 
IGNORANT, 
in my opinion. 
> 
> 
> > nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I 
> and me, but in general in 
> > my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as 
> persona but as 
> > consciousness
> 
> Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making?  

HP: When a Guru brings 2 to enlightenment in one year, why they engage in 
certain 
methodologies is not important, and certainly if a student ( I realize you are 
not) needs to 
ask why, they are in the wrong place

 thMMY 
> doesn't caution people in that manner. 

HP: ok, then question this since it is apparent that there are none conming to 
realization 
there

 Your Guru is an oddball.

HP: Some people may call you an asshole but I certainly won't. I am a really 
calm guy. I 
will cast my opinion though and say that deep down, you know this is not the 
right thing 
to do, telling a disciple that their guru is an oddball. I could go into depth 
in responding to 
this but no need really.
> > 
> > Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my 
> opinion before, when they 
> > use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the 
> same time referring to 
> > the individual I, then this is dellusion.
> 
> Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the "I" 
> word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis.  Are you 
> saying these people are not Enlightened? 

HP: My Guru has also used the "I " word on many occasions. saying the above are 
enlightened or not is not based on this.
> > 
> > Since there is no "Me", then when they use this, they are 
> referenceing something other- I 
> > think this is understood by many or most here. 
> 
> Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum 
> said there WAS a false "Me" or "I".  

HP: I think you may have meant to phrase this line a bit better

Besides, what's so special about 
> that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying 
> this for thousands of years.

HP: It is not that it is special, it is more that even though it is in the 
scriptures and said by 
sages for thousands of years, it still continues to be in place- so again, the 
fallacy that a 
me gains enlightenment is very much in the forefront. My Guru's comments 
speaking 
FROM BEING is " I just tell people the truth, I never existed nor will I ever" 
. Your general 
response is to call her an odd ball- so it seems indirectly that you will stick 
with you 
thought, understanding or whatever it is- and insist that the me is there. Can 
you go to 
your guru and get insights on this? 

HP: I have my guru, and this is the inspiration in what i write. Progress is 
looking good 
here for me and the other disciples. I dont mind responding but if you had the 
name 
calling like this such as odd ball, then my odd ball Guru would show you the 
door very 
quickly. What my path is about is transparency, honesty, integrity and respect.

> > 
> > The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments-
>  "the fallacy is that a 
> > "me"  becomes enlightened
> 
> Nobody every said a "me" becomes Enlightened.  Stop confusing the 
> issues.  As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as 
> a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in 
> which case the individuals REPORT that they "became" Enlightned; 
> realized the innate, "prior", pure Consciousness of the Self.
> Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the 
> obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) 
> removed, the false "me" obviously cannot exist.
>  However, the "I" or "me" as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta 
> Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the 
> delusion of separateness.

HP: I guess we can call it a paradox, and lim

[FairfieldLife] Re: Next Chapter to the Da Vinci Code?

[Robert Gimbel]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting article:
> 
> 6 Ark. nuns excommunicated for heresy By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated 
> Press Writer 
> 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

Excommunication is such a joke: to Jesus that is...
Who would Jesus excommunicate? No one!
The Church is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the church.
The Church is part and parcel of the Roman Empire.
It's icons, symbols, statues, subjugation of women, persecution of the 
Jews, the disrespect of other religions (not to mention the death and 
destruction the church has caused, since it's origin)
The child molestation, perversion of the priests, all make the Church 
a very dangerous, ilrelevant and ignorant entity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[yifuxero]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru 
will say "this one" 

Right, but Ramana Maharshi and others say "I'. Saying "this one" all 
the time is ridiculous!..

> replacing the word "I", the other Gurus in my path do the same. My 
Guru said that 
> speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the "me" 
is gone and there is 

Again, absurd. Tell your Guru to try speaking Engles, Senor.


> nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I 
and me, but in general in 
> my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as 
persona but as 
> consciousness

Why would your Guru caution people to engage in mood making?  MMY 
doesn't caution people in that manner.  Your Guru is an oddball.
> 
> Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my 
opinion before, when they 
> use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the 
same time referring to 
> the individual I, then this is dellusion.

Again, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj have used the "I" 
word on many occations, MMY likewise, and Jerry Jarvis.  Are you 
saying these people are not Enlightened? 
> 
> Since there is no "Me", then when they use this, they are 
referenceing something other- I 
> think this is understood by many or most here. 

Precisely, at last we agree on something!. But nobody on this forum 
said there WAS a false "Me" or "I".  Besides, what's so special about 
that declaration, in view of the fact that Sages have been saying 
this for thousands of years.
> 
> The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments-
 "the fallacy is that a 
> "me"  becomes enlightened

Nobody every said a "me" becomes Enlightened.  Stop confusing the 
issues.  As reported by various Enlightened persons, Enlightenment as 
a Realization takes place within the realm of apparent space-time; in 
which case the individuals REPORT that they "became" Enlightned; 
realized the innate, "prior", pure Consciousness of the Self.
Thus, in the process of an apparent progression in which the 
obstacles to Enlightenment were gradually (or perhaps suddenly) 
removed, the false "me" obviously cannot exist.
 However, the "I" or "me" as mentioned by Ramana and Nisargadatta 
Maharaj, and many others, still exists as a body/mind minus the 
delusion of separateness.
 For example, Rory states that he realized the Self at some 
particular time (I forgot the year, 2001?)
Adi Da says he realized the Self in 1970 while at the Vedanta Temple 
in Hollywood.
Ramakrishna says he realized the Self after getting initiated by a 
Brahmin in some non-dualist school.
Ramana says he realized the Self on 7-17-1896.
Lakshmana, a disciple of Ramana, claims he realized the Self (I 
believe in 1949); at which time shortly thereafter, he handed a note 
to Ramana saying "I have realized the Self".
HWL Poonja says he realized the Self while in the presence of Ramana 
Maharshi. 
Obviously, the Realization the Self implies that the "I" acting as an 
entity apparently separate from the Self had vanished, being a total 
delusion.  Nobody is disputing that! Thus, that "I" can't realized 
the Self since it was a delusional entity. 

So what is meant by such persons when they say "I have realized the 
Self".  The meaning is simply that (as reported by some aspect of the 
individual as a body/mind); btw, you will agree that the above 
persons reported that they had realized the Self.  This is a matter 
of record. To continue, the meaning is that the obscurations to the 
self-evident nature Pure Consciousness had VANISHED. However, some 
aspect of the body/mind reported on that event.
 Though there is no separate entity that can realize the Self, there 
is a part of the body/mind that can report on the fact of the 
Realization in apparent space-time. 
 Therefore, your Guru's statements are only partially correct.
If he wants to go around saying "this person" or whatever, in place 
of the "I" word, so be it.  The Dalai Lama acts like an ordinary 
person, on the surface.  He uses the "I" word, does he not?  Yes, in 
the Barbara Walters interfiew he used it several times.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "purushaz"  wrote:
> >
> > Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
> > this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti 
from 
> > the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  
Therefore, 
> > the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of course all 
of 
> > attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
> >  Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
> > persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of 
conversation, 
> > may say "I", and "me" often.
> >  Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or 
> > "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
> > there's no such false "I"; however, the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[Ron]

The use of words may be frustrating in this case. Often My Guru will say "this 
one" 
replacing the word "I", the other Gurus in my path do the same. My Guru said 
that 
speaking this way is researved or those Realized because the "me" is gone and 
there is 
nothing to replace it with. On other occasions, my Guru will say I and me, but 
in general in 
my gurus books, she cautions the disciples not to view the Guru as persona but 
as 
consciousness

Generally speaking, Gurus will say I and me, and as I cast my opinion before, 
when they 
use this speach, and if they are claiming enlightenment, and at the same time 
referring to 
the individual I, then this is dellusion.

Since there is no "Me", then when they use this, they are referenceing 
something other- I 
think this is understood by many or most here. 

The bottom line is not changing as I see it- my Guru's comments- "the fallacy 
is that a 
"me"  becomes enlightened



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "purushaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
> this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from 
> the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  Therefore, 
> the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of 
> attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
>  Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
> persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, 
> may say "I", and "me" often.
>  Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or 
> "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
> there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a body, mind, 
> actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
> interactions; etc; all of which make up the "I" that separates 
> your Guru from other people.  You will agree that your Guru is not 
> MMY, correct?
>  Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed statements of 
> Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
>  The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown 
> in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, 
> everybody went to see him and he became well known" 
> 
> MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul 
> Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman".
>  So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
> have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving there is an "I"; 
> (since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the delusional "I" 
> which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, 
> everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an 
> individual person, as opposed to other persons.
>  One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter 
> was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice 
> Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
>  Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for Enlightened people 
> is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning 
> with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which 
> distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the "I" in 
> reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing 
> from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the POV's are closely 
> allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
>  In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle.
> 
> 
> 
>  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> >  Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting 
> the student's Shakti."
> > 
> > HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a "me" 
> gains enlightenment. As long 
> > as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions 
> belong to those having 
> > them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
> > 
> > Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. 
> Then such comments 
> > as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, 
> then they can be 
> > forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind 
> rerooted, it is not the 
> > experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of 
> the mind, there is more 
> > to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( 
> weather as form or 
> > absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad 
> because there is more to go 
> > but they are not going to hear one word of that.
> > 
> > The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all 
> the great sages of the 
> > past and now explain from their own existence that this is the 
> case, there is no me and 
> > there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in 
> enlightenment- it is either one or 
> > the other.
> > 
> > These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two 
> recently enlightened echo 
> > the same independant of one another. 
> > 
> > I can only say that

[FairfieldLife] God Speed Off!

[new . morning]

Off,

Let me, along with all redemptive seeking souls, deeply and profusely
apologize for the massive decadence, debauchery and criminality of our
founders, and their even more wretched off spring, who to this day
spoil the natural refinement and  galactic dignity that you so
demonstratively possess. No Scotsman, the soul of God, would ever,
ever, set foot, much less stay, in America for one second, unless they
were treacherously kidnapped, or lost a massively disabling wager. You
have my deepest sympathy for which ever it was, an MAY GODSPEED, your
safe and most hasty return to heaven on earth, to the precious earth
of Scotland. What horrendously evil force is keeping you tied town so
harshly that even a Herculean personality such as your self, is not
able to break free of this terrible curse, exert your own free will,
and flee most rapidly from this hell hole. God Speed, Onward to
Scotland!  oh Noble Soul! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> > 
> > The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> > Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> > litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> > Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> > stature and brilliance now that we need you? >>
> 
> Some of them were too busy raping their slaves (of which there are 
> modern descendents), and others were too busy worrying that Britain, 
> under its free parlimentary system, was moving quickly to outlaw 
> slavery in Britain, with several court cases in London(before US even 
> existed). The others were busy land-grabbing while British soldiers 
> died defending them from the tyrannical Papist regimes of France and 
> Spain, since Britain had emphatically outlawed discriminating against 
> religions, and were busy fighting the forces of the world that wanted 
> tyrannical catholic rule, and would have destroyed US if it was not 
> for British soldiers dying to save their criminal asses. No wonder, 
> MANY of the 'greatest generation' in Britain had no respect for 
> the 'the Yanks' and expressed it openly when I was younger, because 
> the British working folks had a collective memory of that traitorous 
> event and the US joining with the French Papist regime to fight 
> Britain (a war which Britain ultimately won against the French and 
> Spanish, saving America and Europe and laying the ground for the 
> progressive place it was to become)
> (plus, the most common comment from the WWII generation in Britain 
> was: The bloody yanks only came into WWII after all the hard stuff 
> was done"
> 
> > 
> > In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going to 
> be 
> > raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
> > will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I do 
> > not like abortion." That's fine.>>
> 
> Ron Paul does not like abortion. He says it should be decided by the 
> states, which everyone knows only a couple of redneck states would 
> outlaw, and therefore a brain drain would occur from those states, 
> plus people could get abortions anyway.
> 
> All this is simply to try to re-energise their Christian Talibanesque 
> base, but never to act on this rethoric. 
> 
> OffWorld
> 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[Peter]

he is a she.

--- purushaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we
> have to go over 
> this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer
> of Shakti from 
> the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the
> disciple.  Therefore, 
> the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of
> course all of 
> attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend
> or not).
>  Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed
> to other 
> persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course
> of conversation, 
> may say "I", and "me" often.
>  Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or 
> "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's
> Enlightened, then 
> there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a
> body, mind, 
> actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
> interactions; etc; all of which make up the "I"
> that separates 
> your Guru from other people.  You will agree that
> your Guru is not 
> MMY, correct?
>  Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed
> statements of 
> Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
>  The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great
> sage, he was unknown 
> in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in
> English about him, 
> everybody went to see him and he became well known" 
> 
> MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was
> discovered by Paul 
> Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman".
>  So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins,
> Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
> have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving
> there is an "I"; 
> (since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the
> delusional "I" 
> which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke
> that, but rather, 
> everything - every property, quality, or attribute
> that made him an 
> individual person, as opposed to other persons.
>  One of those differences between him and RM was
> that the latter 
> was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners),
> and Maurice 
> Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
>  Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for
> Enlightened people 
> is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of
> properties (beginning 
> with the body(s); that makes up an individual
> person, and which 
> distinguishes that person from others. But most
> important, the "I" in 
> reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a
> particular POV, differing 
> from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the
> POV's are closely 
> allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
>  In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart
> Tolle.
> 
> 
> 
>  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the
> teacher, igniting 
> the student's Shakti."
> > 
> > HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy
> is that a "me" 
> gains enlightenment. As long 
> > as there is a me that is there, there is further
> to go. Cognitions 
> belong to those having 
> > them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
> > 
> > Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then
> the mind reroots. 
> Then such comments 
> > as I am enlightened and yes the me does return,
> there is an ego, 
> then they can be 
> > forgiven. Well, just because this is the
> experience where the mind 
> rerooted, it is not the 
> > experience for those enlightened. For those with
> this rerooting of 
> the mind, there is more 
> > to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner
> Guru as the guide, ( 
> weather as form or 
> > absolute concept), and one thinks they have
> arrived, it is sad 
> because there is more to go 
> > but they are not going to hear one word of that.
> > 
> > The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana
> Maharishi and all 
> the great sages of the 
> > past and now explain from their own existence that
> this is the 
> case, there is no me and 
> > there never was. The me is ego and it can not
> exist in 
> enlightenment- it is either one or 
> > the other.
> > 
> > These are the general points from my Guru, and the
> other two 
> recently enlightened echo 
> > the same independant of one another. 
> > 
> > I can only say that I have had the dharshan of
> MMY, Mother Meera 
> and MY Guru. In 
> > addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as
> well as taking it 
> from a healer and also from 
> > a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to
> compare with.
> > 
> > In my case, it is the most significant with where
> I am now, it has 
> awakened the kundalini, 
> > and the on going guidance ensures that things are
> in balance and 
> progress is taking place.  
> > I notice great progress with about 10 fellow
> sadakas, it is very 
> impressive.
> > 
> > The reason that Kundalini is finished in
> enlightenment, and the 
> reason shakti does not 
> > come from an enlightened teacher is there is no
> persona there, Guru 
> is only consciuous
> > 
> > Hridaya Puri
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://gr

[FairfieldLife] Next Chapter to the Da Vinci Code?

[John]

Here's an interesting article:

6 Ark. nuns excommunicated for heresy By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated 
Press Writer 
2 hours, 16 minutes ago
 


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Six Catholic nuns have been excommunicated for 
heresy after refusing to give up membership in a Canadian sect whose 
founder claims to be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, the 
Diocese of Little Rock announced Wednesday. 

The Rev. J. Gaston Hebert, the diocese administrator, said he 
notified the nuns of the decision Tuesday night after they refused to 
recant the teachings of the Community of the Lady of All Nations, 
also known as the Army of Mary.

The Vatican has declared all members of the Army of Mary 
excommunicated. Hebert said the excommunication was the first in the 
diocese's 165-year history.

"It is a painfully historic moment for this church," Hebert said.

The six nuns are associated with the Good Shepherd Monastery of Our 
Lady of Charity and Refuge in Hot Springs. Sister Mary Theresa 
Dionne, one of the nuns excommunicated, said the nuns will still live 
at the convent property, which they own.

"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right 
thing," the 82-year-old nun said. "We pray that the church will open 
their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, 
the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do."

At a news conference, Hebert said the nuns "became entranced and 
deluded with a doctrine that is heretical." He said church officials 
removed the sacraments from the monastery on Tuesday night.

Hebert said the sect's members believe that its founder, Marie Paule 
Giguere, is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary and that God speaks 
directly through her.

Excommunication bars the nuns from participating in the church 
liturgy and receiving communion or other sacraments.

The diocese said the action was taken after the Congregation for the 
Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration that the Army of Mary's 
teachings were heretical and automatically excommunicated any who 
embraced the doctrine.

Hebert said the diocese had known for years that the nuns were 
following the sect and said church officials in the past had 
encouraged them to come back into the fold.

According to the Catholic News Service, the Army of Mary was founded 
in Quebec in 1971 by Giguere, who said she was receiving visions from 
God.

Dionne said she does not know if Giguere is the reincarnation of the 
Virgin Mary, but said she believes God communicates through the 
sect's founder.

"She is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do," Dionne said.

Calls made to a spokesman for the Army of Mary in Quebec were 
answered by a fax machine tone.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[sgrayatlarge]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>David,

Am I missing something here? Normally when I post an article that has 
a strong bias like this one and after reading your previous posts, I 
would assume that you are in line with Mr. Edelen thinking, hence the 
laugh.

I wonder what he would say about Krishna telling Arjuna he should 
fight and kill his relatives? See how silly that sounds? He is saying 
the same thing in his silly article.

Oh right, he will never comment on that sort of thing.

Also since it seems that Edelen doesn't like this mixing of religion 
and politics, he probably abhors what religious Buddhist monks are 
doing in Burma, mixing religion and politics. Oh right, he will never 
comment on that.

Btw, I am in favor of the Buddhist monks and if a religious 
republican wants to throw in his/her beliefs and values in the 
political debate, free speech cuts both ways. Tolerance cuts both 
ways.

Peace,

Steve

p.s. Someone say something about a Corvette??!!

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  
> wrote:
> >
> > David states: If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against 
> > abortion"
> > and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
> and
> > all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> > Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> > 
> > -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> > > 
> > > The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> > > Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> > > litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> > > Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> > > stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
> > > 
> > > In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going 
> to 
> > be 
> > > raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
> facts 
> > > will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply 
say "I 
> do 
> > > not like abortion." That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
> have 
> > a 
> > > right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church 
and 
> > God 
> > > to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
> > > unhinged and comical they appear.
> > > 
> > > In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
> > > conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
> > > New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
> > > or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
> > slaugh-
> > > tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is 
all
> > > through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
> > > therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 
> reads:
> > > "The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
> ripped
> > > up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
> man's
> > > wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
> > > Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons 
if
> > > they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
> > > wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
> life: "Blessed
> > > are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
> > > never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
> > > hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
> > > joking.
> > > 
> > > In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
> > > The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
> > > breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
> history
> > > of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
> using
> > > the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
> > position
> > > condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
> > > itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
> records
> > > in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
> > > Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
> > > 
> > > If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
> > > and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is 
truth 
> > and 
> > > all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands 
of
> > > Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> > >
> >
> 
> Steve, I didn't state it. Edelen did. That was his essay. I just 
> posted the article. Peace, David
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[purushaz]

Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over 
this?  In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from 
the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple.  Therefore, 
the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of 
attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not).
 Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other 
persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, 
may say "I", and "me" often.
 Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or 
"me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then 
there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a body, mind, 
actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social 
interactions; etc; all of which make up the "I" that separates 
your Guru from other people.  You will agree that your Guru is not 
MMY, correct?
 Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed statements of 
Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31.
 The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown 
in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, 
everybody went to see him and he became well known" 

MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul 
Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman".
 So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we 
have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving there is an "I"; 
(since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the delusional "I" 
which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, 
everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an 
individual person, as opposed to other persons.
 One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter 
was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice 
Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj.
 Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for Enlightened people 
is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning 
with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which 
distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the "I" in 
reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing 
from the POV's of other Gurus.  In some cases, the POV's are closely 
allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM.
 In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle.



 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting 
the student's Shakti."
> 
> HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a "me" 
gains enlightenment. As long 
> as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions 
belong to those having 
> them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.
> 
> Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. 
Then such comments 
> as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, 
then they can be 
> forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind 
rerooted, it is not the 
> experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of 
the mind, there is more 
> to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( 
weather as form or 
> absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad 
because there is more to go 
> but they are not going to hear one word of that.
> 
> The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all 
the great sages of the 
> past and now explain from their own existence that this is the 
case, there is no me and 
> there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in 
enlightenment- it is either one or 
> the other.
> 
> These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two 
recently enlightened echo 
> the same independant of one another. 
> 
> I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera 
and MY Guru. In 
> addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it 
from a healer and also from 
> a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with.
> 
> In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has 
awakened the kundalini, 
> and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and 
progress is taking place.  
> I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very 
impressive.
> 
> The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the 
reason shakti does not 
> come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru 
is only consciuous
> 
> Hridaya Puri
>

[FairfieldLife] Not all shaktipat or dharshan is equall

[Ron]

 Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's 
Shakti."

HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a "me" gains 
enlightenment. As long 
as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to 
those having 
them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet.

Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such 
comments 
as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can 
be 
forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it 
is not the 
experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, 
there is more 
to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as 
form or 
absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is 
more to go 
but they are not going to hear one word of that.

The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great 
sages of the 
past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is 
no me and 
there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is 
either one or 
the other.

These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently 
enlightened echo 
the same independant of one another. 

I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. 
In 
addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer 
and also from 
a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with.

In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has awakened the 
kundalini, 
and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and progress is 
taking place.  
I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very impressive.

The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the reason shakti 
does not 
come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru is only 
consciuous

Hridaya Puri

Re: [FairfieldLife] DS's Response to MDixon Re; Abortion

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 5:44:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Misogeny, the hatred, fear and suppression of woman, and not "life,"  
underlies the position of the religious right on the issue of abortion.  
Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to respond. Peace,  DS




LOL! Had I referred to Islam as being misogynic in another thread that  alone 
would have been grounds for calling me a bigot!



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Congratulations, sgrayatlarge, as this post of your's was #150,000 
on 
> FFL.
> 
> The Corvette Stingray you've won can be redeemed at Rick Archer's 
> home this Saturday between 9am and 5pm.
> 
Uh, I just read the fine print on our contest, and its a full color 
*poster* of a Corvette Stingray. Still free, though framing is extra.:-
)

[FairfieldLife] DS's Response to MDixon Re; Abortion

[oneradiantbeing]

DS wrote: "A fetus is not a human life." 

MDixon responds: "Not human? What does the DNA say it is? It's 
definitely not the mother's, alone, nor the father's, alone and it's 
definitely alive or it wouldn't be growing. 

DS: But the actual fetus is the object in question, not what the fetus 
breaks down into chemically or biologically. That is a separate topic 
and a smokescreen for the real issue at hand, which is: WHO DECIDES if 
this form will mature into a separately functioning human being or not? 
The answer to this dilemma boils down to one primary issue: who is the 
fetus a part of? That is what the courts should decide, not whether 
it's "alive," which can only be determined from the point of view of 
philosophy or theology. In other words, it's merely theoretical.

MDixon: "Why do some states charge a person with double murder if they 
intentionally kill a pregnant woman?"

First, human laws do not make a thing right or wrong.

Second, because the misogynic religious right has had a huge impact on 
state laws. Some of these Christian apologists/misogynists/anti-
abortionists also support laws to stone adulterous women.  

Anti-abortionists remain indifferent toward, or even against, pro-
environmental legislation that would protect the health of fetuses, 
like controlling the amount of mercury released into the environmnent. 
These anti-abortionists are religious and political hypocrits with a 
specifically misogynic agenda. They also oppose birth control to make 
sure women remain "in the home," giving birth to babies whether they 
want them or not. This amounts to punishing women for being sexually 
active. "As you sow, so shall you reap."

Misogeny, the hatred, fear and suppression of woman, and not "life," 
underlies the position of the religious right on the issue of abortion. 
Thanks for your comments and the opportunity to respond. Peace, DS

Re: [FairfieldLife] Response to MDixon - Re: Herbert

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 3:46:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bob Herbert wrote that 
Congress failed to legislate (pass  laws) for the people of DC to have 
their own elected Representatives in  the House and also the right to 
vote.


 
In _1961_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961) , the _Twenty-third  Amendment 
to the United States Constitution_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
  was ratified, allowing District  
residents to vote for president and vice president. This right has been  
exercised by D.C. citizens since the _election  of 1964_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1964) . 
In _1978_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978) , Congress  passed on to the 
states another constitutional amendment, the _District  of Columbia Voting 
Rights Amendment_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment) , 
which would have given the District its  own voting members of 
Congress, making it virtually a state. However, a  seven-year time limit was 
placed on the amendment, which was subsequently _ratified_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification)   by only 16 of the states, far 
short of the 
three-quarters (currently 38)  required for it to be ratified.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[FairfieldLife] Chase the Buffalo

[Vaj]

Listening to Pat Guadagno turned me on to a number of relatively  
unknown singer-songwriters, most recently Pierce Pettis. Pettis was  
originally a staff songwriter for PolyGram Publishing in Nashville.  
It turns out he's really a "musician's musician" and a great  
songwriter. He reminds me of Jimmy Webb. He wrote great song called  
"Chase the Buffalo", which Pat Guadagno covered in the finest version  
I've heard so far.


As with all shared music, if you like it, buy it. If you like it,  
share it with your friends.


http://www.box.net/shared/static/fnly5r1bnr.mp3

CHASE THE BUFFALO
Pierce Pettis, ©1991 Piercepettisongs (ASCAP)

Indians of long ago
Followed after buffalo
They found a use for every part
Everything except his heart

I have wandered like those herds
Lost in music, lost in words
But the hunger leads me on
Seductive like a siren's song

And I can put my ear right to the ground
Just to hear those motors humming
The pounding sound of hoofbeats
Like a thousand guitars strumming
And there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo

People in these halls and bars
They wish on me like I'm a star
But I can never fill that hole
I am not their buffalo

And the gravity of the situation makes me start to fall
My guitar like a fire alarm is ringing off the wall
And there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo

East of Eden, west of the night
The sun lies bleeding in a dying light
And the lady in the Cheyenne moon
Is singing out her mournful tune

So I chase the herds again
Smear the warpaint on my skin
Riding west with all my might
Where the sun is holding off the night

I cannot name this passion
Don't know where this stuff comes from
Maybe its a trail of tears
Or just a trail of crumbs
But there is music in all this
It is all material
Before the beauty melts like snow
Chase the buffalo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[shempmcgurk]

Congratulations, sgrayatlarge, as this post of your's was #150,000 on 
FFL.

The Corvette Stingray you've won can be redeemed at Rick Archer's 
home this Saturday between 9am and 5pm.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> David states: If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against 
> abortion"
> and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and
> all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> 
> -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> > 
> > The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> > Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> > litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> > Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> > stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
> > 
> > In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going 
to 
> be 
> > raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
facts 
> > will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I 
do 
> > not like abortion." That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
have 
> a 
> > right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
> God 
> > to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
> > unhinged and comical they appear.
> > 
> > In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
> > conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
> > New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
> > or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
> slaugh-
> > tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is all
> > through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
> > therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 
reads:
> > "The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
ripped
> > up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
man's
> > wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
> > Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
> > they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
> > wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
life: "Blessed
> > are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
> > never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
> > hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
> > joking.
> > 
> > In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
> > The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
> > breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
history
> > of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
using
> > the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
> position
> > condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
> > itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
records
> > in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
> > Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
> > 
> > If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
> > and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
> and 
> > all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> > Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Response to MDixon - Re: Herbert

[oneradiantbeing]

MDixon wrote: Bob Hebert doesn't bother to tell us what the 
Constitution says about Washington D.C. having elected representatives 
and Senators.

DS responds: What the Constitution says in Sec. 8 is that the Congress 
possesses power to legislate for the District of Columbia and what the 
size of this district should be limited to. Bob Herbert wrote that 
Congress failed to legislate (pass laws) for the people of DC to have 
their own elected Representatives in the House and also the right to 
vote. How do you feel about the fact that these people (mostly Black 
people) cannot vote except in presidential elections and yet they pay 
taxes to the U.S. government just like everybody else? Here is a 
quotation right from Sec. 8 of the US Constitution: Peace, DS 

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such 
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of 
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of 
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority 
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the 
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, 
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

In a message dated 9/26/07 5:31:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
> majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
> they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
> represent them.
> 
> A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had 
> already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - 
with 
> the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday 
and 
> said: "No way, baby."

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims 
of 
> > abortion.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Ugly Side of the GOP
> > > > By Bob Herbert
> > > > The New York Times
> > > > 
> > > > Tuesday 25 September 2007
> > > > 
> > > > I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
> > > > traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., 
last 
> > > week. >>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ME TOO !!
> > > 
> > > And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
> > brawl, 
> > > but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
> > > by "coalition" forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> 
> A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.
>

This debate has been going on for many years in Congress and among 
Americans.  I don't think we can settle this issue in this forum.  
Nonetheless, we can ask: if a fetus is not human life, what is it?  I 
believe that by reason alone, one can come to a conclusion that it 
comes from a human origin.

For convenience, Congress has passed the responsibility to the States 
to determine the status of a fetus.  But the question still remains 
at the individual basis, as a matter of conscience.

If a fetus is aborted, I believe that a negative karma is created 
which will ultimately affect the person involved and the nation that 
allows abortion to be performed.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY ...

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 10:13:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A fetus  is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.  




Not human? What does the DNA say it is? It's definitely not the  mother's, 
alone, nor the father's, alone and it's definitely alive or  it wouldn't be 
growing. Why do some states charge a person with double murder if  they 
intentionally kill a pregnant woman?



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY ...

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 5:31:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Last  week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
> majority black  population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
> they have  sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
> represent  them.
> 
> A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House  had 
> already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate -  
with 
> the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on  Tuesday 
and 
> said: "No way, baby."



Bob Hebert doesn't bother to tell us what the Constitution says about  
Washington D.C. having elected representatives and  Senators.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 7:32:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Since 9-11,  100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we lost in 
Vietnam, Korea  and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work 
of 
an Islamic  terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil 
the survival  of our republic. 
Terrorists can  blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our 
malls and  stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists 
smuggle an atom  bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and 
detonate  
it. 



And in general wreak havoc on our economy through these  actions.



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/26/07 6:34:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

hile I  agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I  think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of  Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades


Of course Israeli's use propaganda as do Palestinians and propaganda  doesn't 
necessarily have to be a falsehood. Israel is in a fight for it's very  
existence and they have to stick up for themselves. One thing Israelis have  
learned , the hard way, is you don't lay down for someone trying to kill you.  
The 
web sites I provided have been corroborated by other sources  including major 
American media sources(other than Fox) as well as   Palestinians who used to 
fall for that stuff. 



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[nablusoss1008]

-- >
> 
> A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics.

to take an abortion is like 
"burning down an uninhabited house"
- Maharishi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "qntmpkt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. 

Now do you know? 

Does lightning strike downwards, from cloud to earth,
or upwards, from earth to cloud?

As it turns out, both. From 
http://screem.engr.scu.edu/emerald/VLF/ligh.html :

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Does lightning travel upwards or downwards?

The answer is BOTH: For a cloud-to-ground the stepped
discharge, leader begins in the lower section of a
and thunderstorm cloud travels downward and initiates an
upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground
(see animation at right). The two meet in midair, usually
at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the
stepped leader and leader meet, providing a conducting path
for charge flow, there is a huge flow of current upwards
through the channel, brightly illuminating it.Other types
of discharges, such as the less frequent ground-to-cloud
discharges, consist of an upward moving stepped leader that
starts from an object on the ground. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[qntmpkt]

--There are some non-sequiturs in the paragraph below. It says "you 
are at home in that (the dynamic aspect of life). Then it says "Being 
at home, therefore you are happy".  Non-Sequitur. There are 
plenty of creatures "at home" but grossly unhappy.
 Then it says "Therefore life is bliss".  Doesn't follow at all!.
Last, it says "all else is illusion". There's a problem here.  What 
is the "all else"?? This is shaping up to be a tautology.
The conclusion " life is bliss" may be true but it's not supported by 
the supposed logic of the previous statements.
> 
> 
> Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of
> existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs.
> Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and
> propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. 
Therefore
> you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in 
this
> universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a 
species.
> Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this
> universe. All else is illusion.
> 
> Therefore, life is bliss. 
> All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Tom T:
> > You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions 
lead
> > one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. 
Awesome!. 
> Tom
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

[qntmpkt]

--But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti. 
This helps eradicate obstacles to the immediate apprehensionof Pure 
Consciousness.
  A dirt clod is equally "The Absolute" or, emptiness, compared to 
MMY or a Buddha; but dirt clods don't help much.  Therefore, there 
are other ingredients that should be identified as evolution 
facilitators..

.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  
> wrote:
> >
> > Some good points.
> > 
> > On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from 
> his
> > side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
> > darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition. 
> > 
> > {Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks 
it
> > all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the 
> well
> > head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is 
tapped.
> > The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden 
> chain
> > is attached between teacher an student. And then everything 
flows. 
> The
> > teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
> > [this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]
> 
> Very interesting point. Thanks !
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)

> Agreed ! Where is the freedom for millions of americans the  
> president so loudly and forcefully wants to export to other 
> countries ?

Hopefully, the freedom is still located in the Ballot Box, that is, 
if the bastards haven't corrupted the way the votes are cast, yet.

The Republicans are so easy to see through, if you have a brain...
The stand for lies, manipulation, greed, lust and murder.
They have no compassion, and they are not conservative.
Hopefully, since they have ignored the Black People, they have 
insured- a Democratic Victory, if we make it through the last days, 
of Bush Presidency...

As far as comparing abortion, to the bombing of innocents:
Let's put it this way...
Would you rather be a fetus in the womb, of a couple or woman who 
does not want to carry you to term, who chooses to end that 
pregnancy, aborted(so, you as a soul, can manifest in another womb at 
a better time?),
Or, would you rather have your countries infrastructure, completely 
destroyed, by an outside power, and then occupy your country, and 
then hire professional killers to roam your streets, in the night, 
with machine guns at the ready, with high altitude jets flying above, 
bombing, bombing, and more bombing, with no end in sight, and no 
place to go? Watching your poor country completley destroyed, 
experiencing unimaginable horrors?
Would you rather live in a place, where an outside force, has decided 
your repressive government has to go, so they invade your country, 
and unleash ancient tribal forces, that turn the country into a blood-
bath of civil way.

Would you rather live in a nation(USA), where the more greedy you 
are, the more ruthless, the more cold and calculating- the more you 
break the back of others, the ones you consider, 'inferior'..
What kind of a nation to you want to be a part of?
A country with 'God', on the money, inferring that God is Money, and 
Money is God.
Or, would you rather live in a nation based on the spiritual 
principles of God, rather than praying and idolizing the many false 
gods that lust, greed and murder produce?
A nation who prays to false idols is on shaky ground.
Shake, shake, shake...
Shake your booty, shake that booty...

r.g.  madison.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[Vaj]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:37 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France
> and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states
> will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about
> people who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and
> Buddhists? What about human rights in general?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, both France
and Germany are pretty strongly in the "If you move
to our country, you tacitly agree to play by our
rules" camp. And they've gotten very little negative
feedback on that from anyone but insane fanatical
Muslims. Unfortunately, as in the US, the insane
fanatics tend to get the airplay on the News, so
people think there are more of them than there are.
In my experience, most of the Muslim community
thinks these people are insane, too. They're not
going to let a few fanatics spoil it for the rest
of them in the long run.


Hopefully that is the case. Some polls have shown that in some  
countries there is a minority of radicals, but a close majority that  
supports some of their actions.


It is certainly a universal structure in mythic religious believers  
across religion or country -- more specifically those who adhere to  
an egocentric or ethnocentric god, a people of a "my god" or a  
certain god, the god of a chosen people as opposed to world-centric  
god. In fact this is a given in almost all religious terrorists  
whether it be protestant fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics  
or Buddhists who put sarin gas into subways: a fundamentalist,  
ethnocentric, mythic belief driven by a egocentric, rather primitive,  
drive.


The psychological profile of almost ALL terrorists is identical: 'I  
see no room in the MODERN world for MY god or MY PEOPLE'S god:  
therefore it's my destiny/duty/dharma to kill "the other".


When immigrants from societies whose collective consciousness are  
still at the Red (mythic gods) and Blue (mythic order) meme move into  
orange meme or higher societies, it hard for them to remain at the  
lower levels--they will naturally gravitate towards the orange meme  
themes (scientific understanding). The main way this can be  
forestalled is to isolate one's group from the whole and refuse to  
assimilate. Since the majority of the planet is at orange meme or  
higher (our collective center of gravity), it takes societal or  
collective effort to NOT assimilate, at least to orange meme. This is  
also why the collective will tend to focus, sometimes as a demonic  
projection, on these lower levels that are still resisting more  
globlacentric integration and acceptance. The US and western Europe  
are some of the first emerging green meme center of gravity societies  
and we are beginning to get some second tier segments of society  
(yellow, turquoise and coral meme), but they are still in the  
minority overall.


The fastest way to urge collective societal consciousness higher is  
to encourage assimilation of groups which still actively resist the  
reality of a modern world with different people, all in the same  
boat--not competing "tribes"-- and encourage the more universal,  
global-centric aspect of spirit (in my estimation).

[FairfieldLife] Turq: I saw Next

[Bhairitu]

Next has been releasing on DVD here in the US.  I watched it last 
night.  I can see why it got panned by critics and it is just another 
victim of the studios trend to do science fiction and horror for PG-13 
audience.  Though an interesting story and somewhat well developed it 
could have been better as it came off as a couple cuts above a TV 
movie.  I like to see these kind of films with an "R" rating because 
that usually means the material has been developed in a more mature 
manner targeted at an audience over 18.  An "R" rating does not 
necessarily mean gratuitous violence or sex.  I recall what Robert 
Altman said in his commentary on "Gosford Park" that he put in enough 
"f" words to make sure it got an "R" rating so that kids wouldn't spoil 
the movie for a film made for an adult audience.

On a technical note this is another film done with the Panavision HD 
Genesis system which allows filmmakers to use conventional 35mm gear and 
lenses when shooting HD.  You can't tell its not film.  The Genesis 
system uses a single CMOS instead of 3 CCDs and that's what allows it to 
use 35mm lenses.

However it was a good ride and thanks for the recommendation.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

[Vaj]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 11:47 AM, new.morning wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:
>
> > Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
> > about muslims.
>
> > If Vaj wants to live in a
> > nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
> > racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.
>
> What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions?
>

My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement.
Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of
over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that
is not there.

Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw
conclusions, as in "truth claims". I have opinions, some of which I
assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to
change the probabilities at any time. I work form a series of
interrelated flexible, adaptive working hypotheses, not conclusions.

Though I suppose I may use the term "conclusion", I don't believe I
do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of
a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not  
Truth.


"So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people
who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What
about human rights in general?"

I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made
about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just
radical, but "most all" if I have understood you correctly.

These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might
structure the above, "If Vaj wants to live in a
nation ..", a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility.

A conditional statement is just that. If A then B, If Not A, then
Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact.

And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior
statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word
symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed,
evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal.

So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not
currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the
following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my
impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my
understanding of them.

My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized:
"there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not
just radical, but "most all", [or many]" [brackets clause just added,
to clarify my intended conditional statment.

Correct and clarify.


Thanks, I'll pass.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:
> 
> > Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
> > about muslims.
> 
> > If Vaj wants to live in a
> > nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
> > racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.
> 
> What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions?
>

My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement.
Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of
over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that
is not there.

Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw
conclusions, as in "truth claims". I have opinions, some of which I
assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to
change the probabilities  at any time. I work form a series of
interrelated flexible, adaptive  working hypotheses, not conclusions.

Though I suppose I may use the term "conclusion", I don't believe I
do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of
a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not Truth.


"So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people
who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What
about human rights in general?"

I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made
about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just
radical, but "most all" if I have understood you correctly. 

These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might
structure the above, "If Vaj wants to live in a
nation ..", a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility. 

A conditional statement is just  that.   If A then B, If Not A, then
Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact.

And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior
statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word
symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed,
evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal. 

So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not
currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the
following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my
impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my
understanding of them.

My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized: 
 "there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not
just radical, but "most all", [or  many]" [brackets clause just added,
to clarify my intended conditional statment.

Correct and clarify.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[oneradiantbeing]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> David states: If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against 
> abortion"
> and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and
> all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> 
> -David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> > 
> > The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> > Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> > litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> > Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> > stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
> > 
> > In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going 
to 
> be 
> > raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few 
facts 
> > will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I 
do 
> > not like abortion." That's fine. That's their opinion and they 
have 
> a 
> > right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
> God 
> > to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
> > unhinged and comical they appear.
> > 
> > In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
> > conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
> > New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
> > or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
> slaugh-
> > tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is all
> > through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
> > therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 
reads:
> > "The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child 
ripped
> > up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a 
man's
> > wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
> > Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
> > they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
> > wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal 
life: "Blessed
> > are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
> > never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
> > hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
> > joking.
> > 
> > In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
> > The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
> > breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The 
history
> > of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those 
using
> > the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
> position
> > condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
> > itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder 
records
> > in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
> > Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
> > 
> > If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
> > and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
> and 
> > all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> > Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
> >
>

Steve, I didn't state it. Edelen did. That was his essay. I just 
posted the article. Peace, David

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> 
> The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> stature and brilliance now that we need you? >>

Some of them were too busy raping their slaves (of which there are 
modern descendents), and others were too busy worrying that Britain, 
under its free parlimentary system, was moving quickly to outlaw 
slavery in Britain, with several court cases in London(before US even 
existed). The others were busy land-grabbing while British soldiers 
died defending them from the tyrannical Papist regimes of France and 
Spain, since Britain had emphatically outlawed discriminating against 
religions, and were busy fighting the forces of the world that wanted 
tyrannical catholic rule, and would have destroyed US if it was not 
for British soldiers dying to save their criminal asses. No wonder, 
MANY of the 'greatest generation' in Britain had no respect for 
the 'the Yanks' and expressed it openly when I was younger, because 
the British working folks had a collective memory of that traitorous 
event and the US joining with the French Papist regime to fight 
Britain (a war which Britain ultimately won against the French and 
Spanish, saving America and Europe and laying the ground for the 
progressive place it was to become)
(plus, the most common comment from the WWII generation in Britain 
was: The bloody yanks only came into WWII after all the hard stuff 
was done"

> 
> In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going to 
be 
> raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
> will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I do 
> not like abortion." That's fine.>>

Ron Paul does not like abortion. He says it should be decided by the 
states, which everyone knows only a couple of redneck states would 
outlaw, and therefore a brain drain would occur from those states, 
plus people could get abortions anyway.

All this is simply to try to re-energise their Christian Talibanesque 
base, but never to act on this rethoric. 

OffWorld


 That's their opinion and they have a 
> right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
God 
> to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
> unhinged and comical they appear.
> 
> In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
> conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
> New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
> or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
slaugh-
> tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is all
> through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
> therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 reads:
> "The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
> up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
> wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
> Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
> they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
> wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: "Blessed
> are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
> never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
> hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
> joking.
> 
> In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
> The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
> breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
> of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
> the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
position
> condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
> itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
> in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
> Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
> 
> If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
> and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and 
> all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Abortion - By William Edelen

[sgrayatlarge]

David states: If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against 
abortion"
and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and
all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.

-David, you are hysterical!! Thanks for the laugh.

Steve


-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)
> 
> The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
> Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
> litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
> Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
> stature and brilliance now that we need you? 
> 
> In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going to 
be 
> raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
> will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I do 
> not like abortion." That's fine. That's their opinion and they have 
a 
> right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and 
God 
> to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
> unhinged and comical they appear.
> 
> In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
> conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
> New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
> or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and 
slaugh-
> tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is all
> through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
> therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 reads:
> "The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
> up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
> wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
> Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
> they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
> wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: "Blessed
> are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
> never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
> hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
> joking.
> 
> In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
> The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
> breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
> of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
> the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life 
position
> condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
> itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
> in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
> Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.
> 
> If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
> and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth 
and 
> all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
> Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims of 
> abortion.>>

A fetus is not a baby. 
The states decide on what to do about abortion, not federal.
Therefore the states have clearly and emphatically decided it is 
legal...all of  them. Even the redneck republican states have not 
outlawed itwhich they totally could if they wanted to.

No-one wants to. 
The reason?...because it is education and wholesome growth of 
communities that is the best hope for your fetuses that you want to 
save ...not laws.

OffWorld

 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > The Ugly Side of the GOP
> > > By Bob Herbert
> > > The New York Times
> > > 
> > > Tuesday 25 September 2007
> > > 
> > > I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
> > > traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
> > week. >>
> > 
> > 
> > ME TOO !!
> > 
> > And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
> brawl, 
> > but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
> > by "coalition" forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Abortion - By William Edelen

[oneradiantbeing]

Abortion, by William Edelen, (Taken from: www.williamedelen.com)

The Republican National Committee, the big shots, are meeting.
Do you know what they are going to debate? A proposed abortion
litmus test for all Republican candidates. My gawd! Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, where are men of your
stature and brilliance now that we need you? 

In this "debate" the "Bible" and "God" are words that are going to be 
raining down like balloons at a Republican convention. A few facts 
will puncture those balloons. If a person wants to simply say "I do 
not like abortion." That's fine. That's their opinion and they have a 
right to it. But when they start using the bible, the church and God 
to justify their position they do not seem to realize how inane,
unhinged and comical they appear.

In papal theology they use the phrase "the sanctity of life from
conception onwards." There is no reference in either the Old or
New Testament to the "sacredness" or "sanctity" of either human
or fetal life. All through the Bible, people are murdered and slaugh-
tered by the millions. The lack of "sanctity" of the fetus is all
through the Old Testament. 2 Kings 15 reads: "All the women
therein that are with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 13:16 reads:
"The infants shall be dashed to pieces, and those with child ripped
up." God tells Moses how to mix a potion for an abortion if a man's
wife has become pregnant by another man (Numbers 5:11-31).
Deuteronomy 21:8 gives us instructions on how to kill our sons if
they are "rebellious." Deuteronomy 13 tells us how to kill our
wives and children. Jesus shows no concern for fetal life: "Blessed
are the barren and wombs that never bore, and the breasts that
never gave suck" (Luke 22). Lack of space precludes my listing
hundreds of other biblical passages. Pro-life? You've got to be 
joking.

In the Bible, human life begins with breathing, not conception.
The Hebrew word to describe a human being is "nephesh . . . the
breathing one." It occurs 854 times in the Hebrew Bible. The history
of the Christian church has never been pro-life. Today, those using
the church and the bible for justification of their pro-life position
condemn abortion as "murder of the unborn," while the church
itself has one of the most horrible, unjust and cruel murder records
in the history of our species, of both the "born" and "unborn."
Millions slaughtered by instruments that stagger the human mind.

If the Republicans want to simply say "I am against abortion"
and let it go at that, fine. But in the name of all that is truth and 
all that is sacred, let them stop using the blood soaked hands of
Moses, the Bible and the church for their justification.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[off_world_beings]

--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Barry writes in his summary:
> So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come
> up with some statement -- any statement -- that is
> true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all
> contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, 
> *then* come back and tell me how accurate
> you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened
> are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.>>>


Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of
existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs.
Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and
propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore
you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this
universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species.
Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this
universe. All else is illusion.

Therefore, life is bliss. 
All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue.

OffWorld



> 
> Tom T:
> You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead
> one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. 
Tom
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true

[off_world_beings]

--- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Barry writes in his summary:
> So have a go at it, eh? And if you are able to come
> up with some statement -- any statement -- that is
> true for all beings, in all periods of time, in all
> contexts, and when viewed from all states of consciousness, 
> *then* come back and tell me how accurate
> you believe the words of the supposedly enlightened
> are when describing what it's like. I'll wait.>>


Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of 
existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. 
Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and 
propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Therefore 
you are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this 
universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. 
Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this 
universe. All else is illusion.

Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion. Untrue.

OffWorld



> 
> Tom T:
> You have now *got* the Byron Katie system down pat. Her questions lead
> one to the conclusion you are asking those here to come to. Awesome!. 
Tom
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[oneradiantbeing]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can say the same thing about million babies who are victims of 
> abortion.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > The Ugly Side of the GOP
> > > By Bob Herbert
> > > The New York Times
> > > 
> > > Tuesday 25 September 2007
> > > 
> > > I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
> > > traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
> > week. >>
> > 
> > 
> > ME TOO !!
> > 
> > And what is wrong with people, protesting over a few kids in a 
> brawl, 
> > but don't give a damn about the 100,000 children murdered 
> > by "coalition" forces and Blackwater in Iraq. ?!??
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
>

A fetus is not a human life. These are two totally unrelated topics. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Some responses to Bronte Baxter from David Spero

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -Nice Curtis!
> 
> I need to email you and reconnect.
> 
> From one unenlightened dude to another
> 
> Steve
> 

That would be great Steve, you were one of the most entertaining guys
at Sidhaland.  Unenlightened guys get the hottest chicks and don't let
anyone tell ya different!




> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" 
>  
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great youtube videos.  He, he, we are all "aspirants" and 
> he 
> > > is the
> > > > > > "enlightened teacher".  Step right up, step right up...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > yeah, I'll bet it really pissed you off in grade school when 
> > > > > the "teacher" referred to you as a "student"...
> > > > 
> > > > Not at all.  The relationship was appropriately named. 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you just read the words "enlightened teacher" 
> and "aspirant" 
> > > as 
> > > > > words with definitions, vs. loading them with baggage, it is 
> > > easier to 
> > > > > see what he is talking about. Dr. Phil, who's common sense I 
> > > enjoy, 
> > > > > refers to this loading as psychological sunburn; because of 
> > > events in 
> > > > > the past, even a mention of a word or phrase evokes strong 
> > > emotion. 
> > > > > I'm not dissing you, just noticing your reaction to those 
> words. 
> > > DS 
> > > > > doesn't strike me as a power tripper in the least.:-)
> > > > 
> > > > So not recognizing people's self proclaimed superior enlightened
> > > > status is a psychological problem that I have that Dr. Phil can 
> > > help
> > > > me with?  That is super news for me!
> > > > 
> > > Why is the self proclaimed status any different whether its 
> someone 
> > > calling themselves doctor because they did a thesis or med 
> school, 
> > > and graduated, or calling themselves enlightened because they did 
> > > self realization school, and graduated? Either way there has been 
> an 
> > > achievement, but so what? Life is full of achievements. Why are 
> > > either of them, the doc or the enlightened, or both of them, 
> > > considered "superior" as a result? And why not just recognize 
> them 
> > > for what they have accomplished? I don't get the issue with 
> that.:-)
> > >
> > 
> > David: "Thanks for deconstructing the notion that within teaching
> > enlightenment there is an inherent, unspoken position of authority 
> or
> > superiority. That was right on! Namaste, DS"
> > 
> > Me: I'll let David explain it to you since he is obviously much more
> > enlighteneder than you are (with the website and all).  If you pay
> > attention you may reach your next stage of enlightenmentedness 
> through
> > recognizing your relationship with his higher degree of
> > enlightendenessinment.  (That is unless your own psychological 
> sunburn
> > doesn't allow you to submit to your true relationship with him as
> > living a state of  less enlightnedernessinment than he has, you know
> > like an MD, so what's the problem?)
> > 
> > Meanwhile common dudes like me will just have to settle for our own
> > level of nonenlightenmentesque lives. Or is it 
> unenlightenmenedness? 
> > Either way you guys can work this one out amongst yourselves and I
> > wont worry my pretty little head about such lofty matters.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

[Vaj]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote:


Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
about muslims.



If Vaj wants to live in a
nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it.


What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France 
> and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states 
> will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about 
> people who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and 
> Buddhists?  What about human rights in general?

I have no idea. As far as I can tell, both France
and Germany are pretty strongly in the "If you move
to our country, you tacitly agree to play by our
rules" camp. And they've gotten very little negative
feedback on that from anyone but insane fanatical
Muslims. Unfortunately, as in the US, the insane
fanatics tend to get the airplay on the News, so
people think there are more of them than there are.
In my experience, most of the Muslim community 
thinks these people are insane, too. They're not
going to let a few fanatics spoil it for the rest
of them in the long run.

> On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran
> > > singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism
> > > once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the
> > > Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew,
> > > he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels.
> > > Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked
> > > and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
> > > negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of
> > > promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such
> > > is a day in Fairfield Life:)
> >
> > While I agree with you completely on what's been
> > going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
> > you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
> > of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
> > It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
> > ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas
> > would like nothing better than for people all over
> > the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
> > then, in their next thought, automatically associate
> > those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'
> >
> > And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
> > extent in the United States. You really don't see
> > it as much here in Europe, where they're more used
> > to dealing with people from different countries
> > and different traditions as individuals, not as
> > symbols for something.
> >
> > When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
> > with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to
> > understand that the propaganda about them is just
> > that, and that they're human beings just like you
> > and me who, for the most part, want the same things
> > that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
> > frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
> > even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
> > a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
> > their back is turned, it's quite a different story.
> >
> > I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
> > and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
> > the things they think, and the things they worry
> > about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
> > grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
> > fear of terrorism in the general population. There
> > is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
> > place to prevent anything from happening, but it
> > really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
> > of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
> > fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
> > they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
> > those lives, for the most part.
> >
> > And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
> > *intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
> > And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
> > at least once.
> >
> > It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
> > indication that the terrorists WON with regard to
> > America and Americans. When the bombs went off in
> > Madrid, half the population of the city marched to
> > show their protest, and their conviction that such
> > things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't
> > tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
> > Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
> > day people were back at work and back in their lives.
> > They didn't allow the mind virus of "terrorism" to
> > take over their lives and make them worried much of
> > the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm
> > sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the
> > terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses
> > free rein in their minds.
> >
> > In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
> > played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
> > life seems to be to suck atten

[FairfieldLife] Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix

[new . morning]

I think thats a common sense article, Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?, 
 with good, almost "obvious", yet sadly not obvious (to many) points. 

I am guessing many readers may have not noticed the author:  Patrick
J. Buchanan. Whom most here, and throughout many liberal enclaves, if
said, "hey, listen to this piece by Pat Buchanan" they would receive
sneers, rebuke, and ridicule. Pre-judging something by some
overly-broad generalizations. In common parlance, its also called
prejudice and bigotry. Not foreign attributes of many political
persuasions, ethnic groups, social strata. Albeit, silently, never
acknowledged, always shunned hypocritically via lip service.

Cognitive Therapy (CT), is actually a therapy used to "heal" or help
people overcome this disabling challenge. As well as arbitrary
inference and selective abstraction. I am not sure of the
effectiveness of cognitive therapy, and I would be interested from any
learned or experience opinions. 

A side observation (of mine) is that those "tending towards
Enlightenment" -- that is those there, thinking they are there, close,
to what ever they define as that state -- are far from immune to
overgneralization and the other maladies for which CT is used as
healing therapy. Should there perhaps be an E2 category -- those who
are enlightened, and then via CT, inquiry, ritam, or whatever, have
healed most all cognitive disabilities? 

Of course that raises the possibilities of And E3 an E4 state. Hey, I
think we may be able to out label Ron Hubbard. 

Several over-generalizations, implied or explicit, today and often
everyday, here, there and everywhere. Turq, I think you are 
over-generalizing about "Americans" from a few, or several dozen,
traveling Americans. Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing
about muslims. Others appear to be overgeneralizing about Jews. And of
course, I may be overgeneralizing here.

Speaking of Muslims (and perhaps Arabs), I saw an interview this
weekend with Nassim Nicholas Taleb on book TV (on CSPAN all weekeds)
-- my favorite TV of all. (how can Heroes compare to THIS!).

His first book, Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in
Life and in the Market, I have partly read and love. His new bool, The
Black Swan -- about highly unlikely events -- and their impacts on
individuals and society, appears, far-reaching, deeply connected, and
highly insightful. A major theme of his is that things are way more
random than most suppose -- an that people draw all sorts of causal
relations inappropriately -- and too their detriment. A great read for
all here, and FFL booklist, candidate.

Back to Taleb. Hardly an expousing religious kind of guy, he did hint
of his Islamic and or Arab background. To equate some of the
overgeneralize, perhaps implied, islamic slurs here recently, and in
the past, is quite laughable. Puts such expousers in glorious
perspective. YMMV. 


Back to Pat, if America ends, I won't go th the funeral. I will toast
of some good and great things at its wake, though. Amercia is not
important, IMO, in the long span of history, relative to attributes it
tries to enoble and live by -- an often fails miserably. We can all
make our lists -- and the may even have some Venn type overlap. 

If I woke up tomorrow to find the new nations of Pacifica,
Mountaintonia, Zealotecha, Snoberossa, etc, I would not shed a tear. 
Each seperatley may be able to fulfill the dream of many noble
qualities for which America is currently failing, or faultering in.
Some of the new nations would enoble some of these qualities better
than others. Those that like those qualities an migrate wowards there
and live in a society tht suits them. Those with bettr overall
qualites will tend to flourish, those with less qualites, or
floundering with all through inept administration and/or leader
selection processes -- will lose favor -- an have pressure to change
and evolve.

If Dixon wants a nation strongly adhered to a particular brand of 
Christian priciples an doctrine, go for it. If Vaj wants to live in a
nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or
racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it. If Turq
wants a society or only hip non-americans, kewl. Create and strive to
build these new nations, on the ashes of America. See how well these
societies work. That would be the "American spirit" renewed in the
American pheonix arising form those ashes.
 
Overgeneralizing about terrorism, ethic and racial groups, persons of
various faiths -- what good are they? 

Over claiming causality of terror to national demise, various
practices with particular inner   (darshan and spectacular experience)
an outer (YF or BK and world peace)  -- or even way under evidence
correlations of enlightenment with any improved positve attributes --
what good are they?

In "New_Morningna" -- a blissfull alpine country, on the coast, with
georgeous mountains 14,00) foot mountains, and nearby coastal white
sandy beaches (its one hell

[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and  
> Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will  
> be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people  
> who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists?  
> What about human rights in general?


The Islamification of Europe 
Simon Kuper 
Financial Times, August 19 2007 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/123ade02-4e6f-11dc-85e7-779fd2ac.html

Excerpts:

...Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, cited the immigration from
Muslim countries and relatively high birth-rates of immigrants as
trends that mean "Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population
by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest." 

Most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss such
predictions. 

Jytte Klausen, a professor of politics at Brandeis University who
studies European Muslims, says: "It's being advocated by people who
don't consult the numbers. All these claims are really emotional
claims." Sometimes they are made by Muslim or far-right groups, who
share an interest in exaggerating the numbers. 

Nominal Muslims – whether religious or not – account for 3-4 per cent
of the European Union's total population of 493m. Their percentage
should rise, but far more modestly than the extreme predictions. That
is chiefly because Muslims, both in Europe and the main "emigrating
countries" of Turkey and north Africa, are having fewer babies. […] 

The US National Intelligence Council predicts there will be between
23m and 38m Muslims in the EU in 2025 – 5-8 per cent of the
population. But after 2025 the Muslim population should stop growing
so quickly, given its falling birth-rate. In short, Islamicisation –
let alone sharia law – is not a demographic prospect for Europe. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 9/25/07 7:55:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> I can't  seriously believe that anyone, particularly anyone who knows
> Judy, could  seriously conclude by what she said that she really *did*
> mean convert to  Islam simply because of hearing a song - no matter how
> beautiful. I don't  know what your history is with Judy, Sal, but I
> suspect that you, like  Dixon and Barry, have been a recipient of her
> criticism and don't mind  finding any excuse to attack her.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran singer
amusing  
> in that she had considered converting to Judaism once before and was
gushing  
> over a little boy singing from the Koran without knowing what he was
singing.  
> For all anybody knew, he could have been singing about killing Jews
and other 
>  infidels. Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm
attacked 
> and  called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
negative like 
>  bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of promoting Israeli 
> propaganda,  code word for *Jewish lies*. Such is a day in Fairfield
 Life:)


What's most disturbing is that you wear your bigotry so
self-assuredly. It's classic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Charles Lutes at Bedtime

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been listening to Charles Lutes every night, all his 
> recorded 
> > > lectures and answers to questions. After a few weeks of 
> listening, I'm 
> > > getting the impression that he was a legitimately powerful soul.
> > 
> > 
> > Charlie was, in my view, an institution. I had the good fortune to
> > have known him personally for over 20 years and I felt a tremendous
> > empty gap when he passed away. In the later years before he got 
> sick I
> > began to recognize that he was literally his 'own' being and 
> commanded
> > a powerful yet sublime energy presence. He didn't look outside of
> > himself for anything. As you've likely noticed in his lectures,
> > whatever the question or topic, he always focused it in terms of
> > encouraging the meditaters in their practice of Transcendental 
> Meditation.
> > 
> > "You have taken on the human form to gain Divine Mind through
> > knowledge and experience in the field of combined opposites." 
> > 
> > ~~  Charlie Lutes 
> > 
> > 
> > Revealing exchange between Charlie Lutes and Maharishi [according to
> > Charlie]
> > 
> > Charlie said, "Why don't you tell them that if they meditate for 
> God 
> > they will evolve faster?" "Oh Charlie, we not have to tell them 
> > everything!", laughed Maharishi.
> 
> Without being disrespectful, could you be kind enough to describe 
> that period of time when Lutes had become ill? Did you ever see him 
> during this period? The reason I ask this, is because I was really in 
> awe of his strengh and solid personality. I was really shocked and 
> disheartened to find out that he had contracted dementia. How did he 
> handle himself in the midst of this disease? How did he make that 
> transformation from being a dynamic personality into one as we see 
> characterized by those who suffer from dementia? IOW, I'm trying to 
> understand that transformation by a man of personal strengh, 
> supposedly enlightened into a new and seemingly weaker state, yet 
> still enlightened.


I lost phone contact with Charlie when, in the mid 1990's, I
temporarily moved to San Diego and found out he had moved to
Scottsdale, AZ. I had been informed that he was ill and that it would
be in his best interests to not disturb him and to leave him to the
care of those with him. Apparently he wished it that way, although he
never told me that himself. In any case I respected the request fully
trusting that he was in the best of care. Regretfully, for that
reason, I'm at a loss to answer your question. He passed away in 2001.


"The one who has come, has to go. Nobody can stay here. Every moment 
keep your luggage packed. Nobody knows when death will call. The
warrant of death is like the arrest warrant. One cannot think of
appealing against it. Quickly one should leave off everything and
leave. Whatever is, wherever is, we have to leave and go. 

So, if you are ready before, there will be not much of a difficulty, 
while leaving. The one who is always ready to leave, will never be
able to sin. Only by forgetting the other world, one becomes immoral
and licentious. If a man remembers at every moment, that one day or
the other all will have to leave this world, then he will never be
able to bring in untruth and inappropriate conduct into his life." 

~~ Guru Dev

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[Vaj]

Does this echo your sentiment on terrorism and America B.? Just  
curious how close it was.


Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?

It may have been politically incorrect to publish the thoughts on the  
sixth anniversary of 9-11, but what Colin Powell had to say to GQ  
magazine needs to be heard.


Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America.

"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Powell asked. "People  
will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world  
who can change the American way of life or our political system? No.  
Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But  
can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the  
great threat we are facing?"


History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.

Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we  
lost in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these  
murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them,  
terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic.
Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and  
bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the  
worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into New York harbor or into  
Washington, D.C., and detonate it.


Horrible and horrifying as that would be -- perhaps 100,000 dead and  
wounded -- it would not mean the end of the United States. It would  
more likely mean the end of Iran, or whatever nation at which the  
United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.


Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one- 
tenth the size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and  
their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost  
an empire. Germany lost a third of its territory. Both were put under  
military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and Japan were the  
second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of  
their respective continents, Europe and Asia.


Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the  
terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten  
ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear  
of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up  
our freedom.


For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as  
the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a  
mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not  
equal to Spain's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Finland's.


Afghanistan and Sudan, under Islamist regimes, were basket cases.  
Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Iran is unable to build  
modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of  
the United States, at best. While we lack the troops to invade Iran,  
three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in  
weeks, smash Iran's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its  
population to destitution.
Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on Israel,  
it would invite annihilation.


As a threat, Iran is not remotely in the same league with the Soviet  
Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi  
Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's Italy.


And why would Tehran, which has not launched a war since the  
revolution in 1979, start a war with an America with 10,000 nuclear  
weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed  
suicide in 30 years by attacking us or Israel?


What makes war with Iran folly is that an all-out war could lead to a  
break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and  
Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al- 
Qaida recruitment and training.


Yet, while talking common sense, Gen. Powell himself reverted to  
cliche. "America could not survive without immigration."


But this is nonsense. From 1789 to 1845, we had almost no  
immigration, before the Irish came. Did we not survive? From 1925 to  
1965, we had almost no immigration. Yet, we conquered the Great  
Depression, won World World II, became the greatest power on earth  
and ended those four decades with an Era of Good Feeling under Ike  
and JFK unlike any we had known before.


Was the America of the 1940s and 1950s in which Colin Powell grew up  
in danger of not surviving for lack of immigration?


In our time, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia have split apart.  
The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have broken up into two dozen  
nations. Terrorism had nothing to do with it. Tribalism had  
everything to do with it.


Race, ethnicity and religion are the fault lines along which nations  
like Iraq are coming apart. If America ends, it will not be the work  
of an Osama bin Laden. As Abraham Lincoln said, it will be by our own  
hand, it will be by suicide.






by Patrick J. Buchanan (more 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[Vaj]

So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and  
Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will  
be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people  
who are not "of the book", like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists?  
What about human rights in general?


On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:34 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran
> singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism
> once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the
> Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew,
> he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels.
> Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked
> and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything
> negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of
> promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such
> is a day in Fairfield Life:)

While I agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas
would like nothing better than for people all over
the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
then, in their next thought, automatically associate
those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'

And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
extent in the United States. You really don't see
it as much here in Europe, where they're more used
to dealing with people from different countries
and different traditions as individuals, not as
symbols for something.

When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to
understand that the propaganda about them is just
that, and that they're human beings just like you
and me who, for the most part, want the same things
that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
their back is turned, it's quite a different story.

I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
the things they think, and the things they worry
about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
fear of terrorism in the general population. There
is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
place to prevent anything from happening, but it
really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
those lives, for the most part.

And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
*intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
at least once.

It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
indication that the terrorists WON with regard to
America and Americans. When the bombs went off in
Madrid, half the population of the city marched to
show their protest, and their conviction that such
things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't
tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
day people were back at work and back in their lives.
They didn't allow the mind virus of "terrorism" to
take over their lives and make them worried much of
the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm
sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the
terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses
free rein in their minds.

In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
life seems to be to suck attention. They want you to
*focus on them*. They want to believe that you're
thinking about them all the time, even if what they
believe you're thinking is how to do them or their
reputations harm. They're like "attention terrorists,"
always trying to push themselves into somebody else's
mind.

Me, I don't stand for it any more. Like the Spanish
and like the British, I've got more important things
to do than think about insecure pissants who want to
force their way into your attention field. Like living.
Like working. Like playing and having fun.

I have realized that the pissants are going to be
stalking me and other people here that they don't
like pretty much forever. I can't do anything about
it; it just seems to be how their minds work, their
"operating system." But I don't have to allow them
into *my* mind.

As with terrorism, living well is the best revenge.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran 
> singer amusing in that she had considered converting to Judaism 
> once before and was gushing over a little boy singing from the 
> Koran without knowing what he was singing. For all anybody knew, 
> he could have been singing about killing Jews and other infidels. 
> Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked 
> and called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything 
> negative like bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of 
> promoting Israeli propaganda, code word for *Jewish lies*. Such 
> is a day in Fairfield  Life:)

While I agree with you completely on what's been
going on here on Fairfield Life, I think that even
you will have to admit that there *is* a great deal
of Israeli propaganda, and has been for decades.
It coincides with a lot of the Neocon/Bush propa-
ganda, in that both sets of People With Agendas 
would like nothing better than for people all over
the world to hear the words 'Arab' or 'Muslim' and
then, in their next thought, automatically associate 
those words with 'terrorist' and 'killer.'

And, sadly, they have accomplished this to some
extent in the United States. You really don't see 
it as much here in Europe, where they're more used 
to dealing with people from different countries
and different traditions as individuals, not as 
symbols for something.

When you live alongside a lot of Muslims, and deal
with them on a day-to-day basis, it's easier to 
understand that the propaganda about them is just
that, and that they're human beings just like you
and me who, for the most part, want the same things
that you and I want. But for Americans who have been
frightened into being *afraid* of anyone who looks
even remotely Middle Eastern, and regarding them as
a potential terrorist ready to kill them the moment
their back is turned, it's quite a different story.

I've met a number of Americans over here lately,
and I have to tell you how *shocking* it is to hear
the things they think, and the things they worry 
about. After living in Europe for four years, I have
grown used to an environment in which there is *zero*
fear of terrorism in the general population. There
is an *awareness* of it, and there are measures in
place to prevent anything from happening, but it 
really doesn't impinge on the private lives of most
of the people. I would go so far as to say that the
fear of terrorism never even enters their minds;
they're too busy living their lives and enjoying
those lives, for the most part.

And then I meet the Americans. *Smart* Americans,
*intelligent* Americans, not like Bush and his cronies.
And they can't go an hour without mentioning terrorism
at least once.

It's very, very sad from my point of view. It's an
indication that the terrorists WON with regard to 
America and Americans. When the bombs went off in 
Madrid, half the population of the city marched to 
show their protest, and their conviction that such 
things were impermissible, and that they wouldn't 
tolerate them. But then they went back to their lives.
Same in London, with the subway bombings. The next
day people were back at work and back in their lives.
They didn't allow the mind virus of "terrorism" to
take over their lives and make them worried much of
the time and make them give away their liberties. I'm 
sorry, dude, but Americans did. They allowed the 
terrorists to WIN, by allowing these mind viruses 
free rein in their minds.

In a way it's similar to some of the games we see
played here on FFL. There are people whose goal in
life seems to be to suck attention. They want you to
*focus on them*. They want to believe that you're
thinking about them all the time, even if what they
believe you're thinking is how to do them or their 
reputations harm. They're like "attention terrorists," 
always trying to push themselves into somebody else's 
mind. 

Me, I don't stand for it any more. Like the Spanish
and like the British, I've got more important things
to do than think about insecure pissants who want to
force their way into your attention field. Like living.
Like working. Like playing and having fun. 

I have realized that the pissants are going to be 
stalking me and other people here that they don't 
like pretty much forever. I can't do anything about 
it; it just seems to be how their minds work, their
"operating system." But I don't have to allow them 
into *my* mind. 

As with terrorism, living well is the best revenge. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amazing young Koran-singer

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 9/25/07 7:55:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can't  seriously believe that anyone, particularly anyone who knows
Judy, could  seriously conclude by what she said that she really *did*
mean convert to  Islam simply because of hearing a song - no matter how
beautiful. I don't  know what your history is with Judy, Sal, but I
suspect that you, like  Dixon and Barry, have been a recipient of her
criticism and don't mind  finding any excuse to attack her.



Actually I found Judy's original post about the little Koran singer amusing  
in that she had considered converting to Judaism once before and was gushing  
over a little boy singing from the Koran without knowing what he was singing.  
For all anybody knew, he could have been singing about killing Jews and other 
 infidels. Just my observation which I found ironic. Meanwhile, I'm attacked 
and  called a bigot because I dare associate Islam with anything negative like 
 bigotry towards Jews and infidels and accused of promoting Israeli 
propaganda,  code word for *Jewish lies*. Such is a day in Fairfield  Life:)



** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ugly Side of the GOP - by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "oneradiantbeing" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Ugly Side of the GOP
> By Bob Herbert
> The New York Times
> 
> Tuesday 25 September 2007
> 
> I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who 
> traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last 
week. 
> But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters 
> marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in 
> Washington.
> 
> Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again 
> just how anti-black their party really is.
> 
> The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, 
> disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black 
> Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its 
> majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a 
goal 
> they have sought for decades - a voting member of Congress to 
> represent them.
> 
> A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had 
> already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate - 
with 
> the enthusiastic support of President Bush - rose up on Tuesday 
and 
> said: "No way, baby."
> 
> At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But 
the 
> Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving 
the 
> 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.
> 
> At the same time that the Republicans were killing 
Congressional 
> representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for 
> president were offering a collective slap in the face to black 
voters 
> nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, 
nationally 
> televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.
> 
> The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a 
> year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the 
> Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The 
> Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates 
> participated.
> 
> The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy 
> Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told 
> Mr. Smiley: "No way, baby."
> 
> They won't be there. They can't be bothered debating issues 
that 
> might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they're 
> Republicans.
> 
> This is the party of the Southern strategy - the party that 
ran, 
> like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who 
were 
> repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. 
Ronald 
> Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate 
> Conservative) Bush - they all ran with that lousy pack.
> 
> Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a 
friend, 
> died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew 
> Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to 
death 
> by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.
> 
> Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, 
> carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.
> 
> In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, 
> Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican 
Party, 
> went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 
1980 
> in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the 
> message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He 
> was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.
> 
> "I believe in states' rights," said Mr. Reagan. The crowd 
roared.
> 
> In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the 
> late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science 
professor 
> at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of 
the 
> Southern strategy:
> 
> "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " 
> said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. 
> Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, 
and 
> all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're 
talking 
> about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are 
> totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks 
get 
> hurt worse than whites."
> 
> In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of 
> black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the 
seat 
> on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood 
> Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, 
> permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is 
itself 
> racist.
> 
> Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, "All right, you want your black 
on 
> the court? Boy, have I got one for you."
> 
> Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in 
> Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent 
> Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to 
i

[FairfieldLife] Re: Signposts that MMY is not enlightened

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Some good points.
> 
> On different responses to darshan, MMY made clear, at least from 
his
> side, and presumably he was pretty attuned to the dynamics of SBS'
> darshan, if not of a much larger group, by tradition. 
> 
> {Paraphrasing} 'It all comes from the student.The student thinks it
> all comes from the teacher, but it is not so. The teacher is the 
well
> head. The water from the well flows in which ever way it is tapped.
> The well does nothing. Its all from the student. Like a golden 
chain
> is attached between teacher an student. And then everything flows. 
The
> teacher has nothing to do with the chain. Its all in the student.'
> [this was a paraphrase not a direct quote.]

Very interesting point. Thanks !

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

[george_deforest]

> cardemaister wrote:
>  again. 1.18
> > Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its 
> reflected images, so the 
> > Supreme Lord exists everywhere within and apart from this body. 1.19
> > Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and 
> > without a jar,
> 
> That's obviously archaic use of "without" (outside?)...
> 

yes; and the Beatles played with the 2 usages in this lyric:

"And the time will come when you see we're all one, 
and life flows on within you and without you."

gotta love it

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ashtavakra Gita -fallacy is that a *Me* can Gain Realizaion

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> >> When there is no "me," that is liberation, and when there 
is "me" 
> there is bondage. 
> 
> yadaa naahaM tadaa moksho yadaahaM bandhanaM tadaa .
> 
> yadaa (when) na (not) aham (I) tadaa (then) mokSaH (liberation)
> yadaa (when) aham (I) bandhanam (bondage) tadaa (then)
> 
> > Consider this carefully, and neither hold on to anything nor 
> reject anything. 8.4
> 
> matveti [matvaa + iti] helayaa ki.nchinmaa gR^ihaaNa vimu.ncha 
> maa .. 8\-4..
> 
> Considering (matvaa) thus (iti) carefully (helayaa: easily,
> sportively - M-W.) kiñcit (anything) maa (do not) gRhaaNa (hold)
> vimuñca (reject) maa (do not).
>

Oops!  ;)