[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been giving a lot of thought to this discussion. I wrote a bunch of things that I never posted. We are seeing Sam's points so differently. I think you are reading in a lot of emotion into Sam's position that is from you, not him. Not to mention reading in a lot of *motives*, from the same source. Hmmm. Have we seen this before? I also think you are missing Sam's whole point if you think he doesn't understand the nuances of religious faith. I get the feeling that he understands them so well, and describes them so well, that he some- times generates a panic reaction from those he *has* understood, and whose beliefs he has described accurately. They are uncomfortable with having their beliefs described differ- ently than *they* would like them described. My understanding of his point is that these differences are not as important as people are making them. Once you accept beliefs like Jesus died for our sins as a factual statement you are already way over the justifiable line in his view. Or when you accept God exists as a factual statement, or accept my technique of meditation is the best as a fact, or the ME is a real phenomenon as a fact. The issue is not with believing these things as *belief*, but with trying to promote them and act upon them as if they were fact. Every being who has attained realization has come to some kind of subjective level of comfort with the things that he or she *believes*. No problemo there. But not all of these beings have declared the things that they believe *fact*. As you say, Curtis, that's taking a step over a line that, in most other situations in life, is drawn to describe the difference between fantasy and reality. I get the feeling that Sullivan is more focused on the up side of belief, the carrot tied to the end of a stick that keeps the donkey walking. Whereas Harris understands that, but at the same time he's seen a few donkeys walk right off the edge of a cliff while single-mindedly pursuing their carrot. Or, more in keeping with the times, seen a few donkeys trample a few kids who got in their way while they were running after the carrot. He's more aware of the potential down side of faith mistaken for fact, and the danger of focus- ing on a dangling carrot to the point that one can no longer see the other things and people around them accurately. All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, if a little long-winded.
[FairfieldLife] Lisa Edelstein's ****buddy?
http://www2.gol.com/users/dcaplan/petri/petri_bio.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
On Feb 22, 2007, at 10:14 PM, tanhlnx wrote: ---Vaj, you're not making sense. Regardless of the purpose, yidam (god) worship is all the same, call it what you want; but much of Tibetan Buddhism is similar to the god-worship of the Hindus. Even the iconography is similar, say Mahakali vs the same Mahakali in Hinduism; Ganesh worship in both religions. There are countless Hindus who regard these gods as wisdom-enhancing focal points; just as in your erronous rendition of Buddhism. Just the fact of the matter--of course you're welcome to entertain whatever belief you chose. Just don't call it Buddha-dharma.
[FairfieldLife] The Fanatic's Mindset Revealed (was Re: Andrew Skolnick revealed)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Sure speaks volumes about the value of TM, eh? Just volumes about you, you m¤%/%#g satanist Wow. Peter's not only paranoid and near-incoherent, he can't even spell m¤%Ð#358;#1101;#g right. A wonderful example of how people who are proven wrong may react: (1) in their reply censor out the stuff that prove them to be lying, cheating bastards harbouyring ulterior motives; (2) attempt to attack the messenger. The way to do it, is (1) to defeat someone with logic; AND (2) finish them off with a literary coup de grace. So, TB, you are a m¤%/%#g satanist aught lying and you should put a knife to your m¤%Ð#358;#1101;#g scrotum, thus sparing humanity further genetic contamination. Um, Peter, you're still banned from Wikipedia, are you not? No. Why do you ask? Just that little exchange above would result in banning. If you'd care to read the responses to the 'exchange' you'll notice that it has provoked OffWorld and TB to finally id:ed themselves as symphatizers with Satanist. It has been noted that this quite astounding revelation causes lesser concern with you than pererklutz' ramblings. Who are you, sparaig, really?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:00 PM, hyperbolicgeometry wrote: --Re: Vaj says that Tibetan Buddhist yidam worship is not really god worship and therefore (a) is dissimilar to Hindui worship - being part of wisdom oriented sadhana.(b) doesn't fall under the scrutiny of Sam Harris' attacks on faith-based religion. Nope, factually incorrect since the Green Tara provides a counterexample to the sole motive of the quest for wisdom. The Green Tara can/is worshipped in Tibetan Buddhism for the expressed purpose (aside from the acquisitionof wisdom); of the attainment of material wealth, better health, eradication of all types of bad karma (and those types of bad karma specifically mentioned in a long shopping list: such as snake bites, boils, zits, etc...you name it (clearly items beyond the scope of pure wisdom.) Overall, Green Tara worship is supposed to offset bad karma on a global scale as well as on a personal level. Thus, Tibetan Buddhist teachers have the same types of motives behind such worship as many motivated Hindus in their worship, even though such Deities are not called gods per se in Tibetan Buddhism. OK, yidams. Also, there are many Hindus who are mostly into the wisdom aspect of Deity worship and would consider it beneath them to pray for material benefits. Thus, to be consistent, the Harris/Vaj criticism of god worship would have to include a good slice of Buddhism. Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Of course not, it just means you hold an erroneous View.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hyperbolicgeometry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Harris does not claim to be a Buddhist, and in fact in one of the articles that were part of this ongoing debate has said explicitly that he was not. And he probably did this to counteract rumors like the one you're perpetuating. Interestingly, I have never once claimed to be a Buddhist. It's just an assumption he's making. As I've said here before: Buddha-dharma is an Enlightenment school. To the extent that Buddhism is an Enlightenment school, it succeeds; to the extent that is a religion or espouse religiosity, it fails. IMO of course.
[FairfieldLife] Marketing Gurus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=155693 Quoting: Each guru has a well-defined set of followers. There are hardly any overlaps and fewer instances of cannibalization where one guru weans away followers from another. For example, one would be hard-pressed to find, say, a follower of both Sri Sri Ravishankar and Osho. Or of a Baba Ramdev and Mata Amritanandamayi. Each segment is uniquely defined. No, how about TM being a gateway towards universalism as they grow out of the TMorg and Maharishi? Evidently, see the directory of active spiritual practice groups in FF, for instance. TM moved on. Out there in the world too is a whole TM movement that went on to sit with other gurus in serial. Now, the old experienced meditating community in Fairfield is quite adept at this. It has moved on. In our own experience with it this has come to be what makes Fairfield such a special place to be in spiritually. The old State of Iowa marketing motto has a lot of truth in it: Iowa, a place to grow. There in fact has been a lot of cross-pollenation between groups and Gurus. Look at who actually are around the gurus administrating and often making the Gurus, often it has been us, the meditators of the old TM movement. -Doug in FF http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/132348
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: A friend of mine does this toohe keeps a picture of Guru Dev in front of him and sometimes asks it questions, (he may even pray to it) I think he got the idea from the book The whole thing, the real thing on Guru Dev. I think he got the idea from reading too much about Nixon's final days in office. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been giving a lot of thought to this discussion. I wrote a bunch of things that I never posted. We are seeing Sam's points so differently. I think you are reading in a lot of emotion into Sam's position that is from you, not him. If you mean you think I'm projecting my own emotions onto Harris, I don't see how that could possibly be the case. As you go on to say, quite correctly, my perspective on what he and Sullivan are discussing-- i.e., the nature of the metaphysical reality--is much more in line with Harris than Sullivan. What I'm seeing with Harris is the need to *stamp out* Sullivan's perspective. I don't think there's any way you could attribute such a need to me. I don't share Sullivan's perspective, but I see no need whatsoever to stamp it out; that's what I would argue *against*. I also think you are missing Sam's whole point if you think he doesn't understand the nuances of religious faith. Let me put it this way: I see nuances in religious faith that I don't find reflected anywhere in what Harris says. If he does understand them, he seems to have chosen not to use that understanding in what he says to Sullivan. I don't think it's possible to argue effectively against religious belief unless one is first able to empathize with it, see how a reasonable, well- balanced, intelligent person could hold it sincerely. My understanding of his point is that these differences are not as important as people are making them. Once you accept beliefs like Jesus died for our sins as a factual statement you are already way over the justifiable line in his view. Clearly. But making an elaborate case that there's no good reason to have confidence in the miracles attributed to Jesus, as Harris does in his latest response, is addressing beliefs that are way, way, *WAY* farther over that line. It seems as though Harris is spending a lot of effort going after the easy stuff that he has a good argument against, even though Sullivan isn't making an argument *for* that stuff, because he doesn't have a good argument against what Sullivan *is* making a case for. In other words, the case Harris makes against Jesus' miracles is one that Sullivan might well concede, but it wouldn't touch Sullivan's belief that Jesus died for our sins. Harris may want to throw the latter belief in the same hopper with belief in Jesus' miracles, but he ignores one significant difference, that one can believe Jesus died for our sins without believing in the miracles. And I really think these are two significantly different types of belief. Jesus died for our sins is a purely metaphysical belief, whereas Jesus walked on water is a belief that something specific happened historically. If we could go back in time, we could determine whether or not Jesus actually walked on water, but going back in time wouldn't tell us whether Jesus died for our sins. (Unless you're convinced Jesus didn't die on the cross, or that Jesus never existed, which seems a lot less likely than that he didn't walk on water.) The reason I haven't posted more on this topic with you is that I really can't understand how you are looking at it. It seems to me that your actual belief system has much more in common with Sam than Andrew. Absolutely, except that I don't see any need to wipe out the type of belief system Sullivan holds. I don't think it's dangerous, and I think it can be very beneficial. What I'm doing, essentially, is being a devil's advocate--so to speak!--for Sullivan's type of belief system, not in the sense that I believe it myself, but that it isn't some kind of grave threat to humankind. I realize my own limits in understanding where you are coming from concerning this discussion. Rather than just spill out my own take on the material, I am trying to understand how you are seeing this discussion so differently than I am. Basically, I don't think Harris has made a good enough argument against Sullivan. Harris is arguing against quite a few straw men and has appeared to avoid some of the real ones. As I keep saying, I do think Harris has made some excellent points, but his straw-man arguments weaken his case considerably. I think Andrew is really interesting and his Blogger please line forever warmed me to him. I don't remember that one. What was it about? But I think it is as impossible for him to understand where Sam is coming from as it is for me to understand where you are coming from, for different reasons. Well, I hope I've advanced your understanding of where I'm coming from a little. My sense is that Sullivan *does* understand where Harris is coming from but just doesn't find it convincing. Sullivan, however, as far as I can tell, doesn't really get what Harris says about the value of experiential exploration of the nature of consciousness, something with which I'm obviously very much in sympathy. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I've been giving a lot of thought to this discussion. I wrote a bunch of things that I never posted. We are seeing Sam's points so differently. I think you are reading in a lot of emotion into Sam's position that is from you, not him. Not to mention reading in a lot of *motives*, from the same source. Hmmm. Have we seen this before? Actually, if you read my post, I didn't read any motives into what Harris says. But ironically, Barry proceeds to explicitly read in a whole bunch of motives. I also think you are missing Sam's whole point if you think he doesn't understand the nuances of religious faith. I get the feeling that he understands them so well, and describes them so well, that he some- times generates a panic reaction from those he *has* understood, and whose beliefs he has described accurately. They are uncomfortable with having their beliefs described differ- ently than *they* would like them described. (Speaking of reading in motives!) Since Barry has this phobia about mentioning my name, it's not always clear when he's referring to me. If he is doing so here, or even just including me, he's hilariously way off base. To the extent that Harris is describing my beliefs, they're the beliefs he's arguing *for*, not against. The big point on which I differ with Harris is that I don't think religious belief of the type Sullivan holds (but that I emphatically do not) is dangerous. My understanding of his point is that these differences are not as important as people are making them. Once you accept beliefs like Jesus died for our sins as a factual statement you are already way over the justifiable line in his view. Or when you accept God exists as a factual statement, or accept my technique of meditation is the best as a fact, or the ME is a real phenomenon as a fact. The issue is not with believing these things as *belief*, but with trying to promote them and act upon them as if they were fact. FWIW, the only one of these three I hold to be a fact is the second, although I'd rephrase it to most effective for householders. So again, if Barry is referring to or even just including me, he's WAY off base on two out of three counts. Every being who has attained realization has come to some kind of subjective level of comfort with the things that he or she *believes*. No problemo there. But not all of these beings have declared the things that they believe *fact*. As you say, Curtis, that's taking a step over a line that, in most other situations in life, is drawn to describe the difference between fantasy and reality. However, religion is not the same as most other areas of life in many respects. (And the image here of Barry making a righteous distinction between fantasy and reality is a source of virtually unlimited belly-laughs.) I get the feeling that Sullivan is more focused on the up side of belief, the carrot tied to the end of a stick that keeps the donkey walking. Whereas Harris understands that, but at the same time he's seen a few donkeys walk right off the edge of a cliff while single-mindedly pursuing their carrot. Or, more in keeping with the times, seen a few donkeys trample a few kids who got in their way while they were running after the carrot. He's more aware of the potential down side of faith mistaken for fact, and the danger of focus- ing on a dangling carrot to the point that one can no longer see the other things and people around them accurately. But Harris and Sullivan *agree* on these points. If that's all the discussion were about, there'd be no reason to hold it, at least not as a debate. As a gay activist, Sullivan is only too aware of the potential downside of being in the way of those running after the carrot, of faith being mistaken for fact. He wouldn't have to *be* an activist if it weren't for those people. All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, if a little long-winded.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Barry, 2:20 a.m. EST:] I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: [Barry, 3:22 a.m. EST:] All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, if a little long-winded. guffaw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [Barry, 2:20 a.m. EST:] I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: [Barry, 3:22 a.m. EST:] All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, if a little long-winded. guffaw What's-her-name obviously cannot read. The post I was replying to earlier had gotten off onto a tangent bashing Vaj's supposed Buddhism. I of course have no interest in participating in that. The overall Harris- Sullivan discussion was interesting in spite of its long-windedness. Nothing that what's- her-name contributed to the discussion was of interest in any way. Clear now? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think Andrew is really interesting and his Blogger please line forever warmed me to him. But I think it is as impossible for him to understand where Sam is coming from as it is for me to understand where you are coming from, for different reasons. Anyway both these guys are bringing this discussion out and that makes me incredibly happy. This is an important topic for me. Check out this quote: While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the red states are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of crime, 62% are in blue states and 38% are in red states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities in the United States, 76 percent are in red states, 24% in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates if theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red. from _Letter to a Christian Nation_ by Sam Harris
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: [Barry, 2:20 a.m. EST:] I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: [Barry, 3:22 a.m. EST:] All in all, it's been an interesting discussion, if a little long-winded. guffaw What's-her-name obviously cannot read. The post I was replying to earlier had gotten off onto a tangent bashing Vaj's supposed Buddhism. I of course have no interest in participating in that. Actually, it was a tangent bashing both Vaj's and Harris's supposed Buddhism, and Barry obviously had an interest in what was being said of Harris. The overall Harris- Sullivan discussion was interesting in spite of its long-windedness. Nothing that what's- her-name contributed to the discussion was of interest in any way. Uh-huh. Says Barry, having just devoted most of a long post to bashing my contributions (albeit getting almost all my positions that he was bashing wrong). Clear now? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:00 PM, hyperbolicgeometry wrote: --Re: Vaj says that Tibetan Buddhist yidam worship is not really god worship and therefore (a) is dissimilar to Hindui worship - being part of wisdom oriented sadhana.(b) doesn't fall under the scrutiny of Sam Harris' attacks on faith-based religion. Nope, factually incorrect since the Green Tara provides a counterexample to the sole motive of the quest for wisdom. The Green Tara can/is worshipped in Tibetan Buddhism for the expressed purpose (aside from the acquisitionof wisdom); of the attainment of material wealth, better health, eradication of all types of bad karma (and those types of bad karma specifically mentioned in a long shopping list: such as snake bites, boils, zits, etc...you name it (clearly items beyond the scope of pure wisdom.) Overall, Green Tara worship is supposed to offset bad karma on a global scale as well as on a personal level. Thus, Tibetan Buddhist teachers have the same types of motives behind such worship as many motivated Hindus in their worship, even though such Deities are not called gods per se in Tibetan Buddhism. OK, yidams. Also, there are many Hindus who are mostly into the wisdom aspect of Deity worship and would consider it beneath them to pray for material benefits. Thus, to be consistent, the Harris/Vaj criticism of god worship would have to include a good slice of Buddhism. Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Of course not, it just means you hold an erroneous View. double-edged sword.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hyperbolicgeometry hyperbolicgeometry@ wrote: Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Harris does not claim to be a Buddhist, and in fact in one of the articles that were part of this ongoing debate has said explicitly that he was not. And he probably did this to counteract rumors like the one you're perpetuating. Interestingly, I have never once claimed to be a Buddhist. You wouldn't capitalize View if you weren't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: A friend of mine does this toohe keeps a picture of Guru Dev in front of him and sometimes asks it questions, (he may even pray to it) I think he got the idea from the book The whole thing, the real thing on Guru Dev. I think he got the idea from reading too much about Nixon's final days in office. Sal LOL! great reply!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hyperbolicgeometry hyperbolicgeometry@ wrote: Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Harris does not claim to be a Buddhist, and in fact in one of the articles that were part of this ongoing debate has said explicitly that he was not. And he probably did this to counteract rumors like the one you're perpetuating. Interestingly, I have never once claimed to be a Buddhist. You wouldn't capitalize View if you weren't. This from the guy who believes Buddha once said God is love and has stated that he can't be bothered to read even one book on Buddhism. I occasionally capitalize the word 'God.' Do you think that makes me a believer in God? Sometimes your levels of ignorance and your seeming *pride* in that ignorance are just astounding, Jim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think Andrew is really interesting and his Blogger please line forever warmed me to him. But I think it is as impossible for him to understand where Sam is coming from as it is for me to understand where you are coming from, for different reasons. Anyway both these guys are bringing this discussion out and that makes me incredibly happy. This is an important topic for me. Check out this quote: While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the red states are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of crime, 62% are in blue states and 38% are in red states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities in the United States, 76 percent are in red states, 24% in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates if theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red. from _Letter to a Christian Nation_ by Sam Harris The above, though an interesting assemblage of facts and connections with regard to present day religion, says nothing about the great possibilities available to those who follow a religion in its truest sense, as an inner compass pointing to that which is always more than we can imagine, focused on the higher values of life. Whether we call this religion or Buddha-dharma, or Christianity, or dedicated spiritual practice, it amounts to the same thing, a vehicle or structure so defined as to allow us to realize our Being, our Self-realization, our ongoing Enlightenment. Per the above I suggest any one reading it not throw the baby out with the bath water in haste.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:20 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I have no interest in this, except to correct a mistake below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hyperbolicgeometry hyperbolicgeometry@ wrote: Since Harris claims to be a Buddhist, doesn't make him (and Vaj) somewhat hypocritical? Harris does not claim to be a Buddhist, and in fact in one of the articles that were part of this ongoing debate has said explicitly that he was not. And he probably did this to counteract rumors like the one you're perpetuating. Interestingly, I have never once claimed to be a Buddhist. You wouldn't capitalize View if you weren't. This from the guy who believes Buddha once said God is love and has stated that he can't be bothered to read even one book on Buddhism. I occasionally capitalize the word 'God.' Do you think that makes me a believer in God? Sometimes your levels of ignorance and your seeming *pride* in that ignorance are just astounding, Jim. I stand by what I said; Vaj wouldn't capitalize the word View if he weren't a Buddhist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Check out this quote: While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. But did this happen because somebody or some group that opposes religion, like Harris, actively brought it about? Did these developed nations accomplish the decline of religion in their societies? Harris seems to be suggesting some kind of deliberate instrumentation of this decline that could be repeated in the United States. What does he think it was? According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious. And here Harris appears to suggest that correlation implies causation, a very distinctly unscientific principle. More likely, I should think, is that there is an underlying cause or set of causes for both the decline in religion and the improvement in social indicators. I suspect what is behind the U.S. statistics on both religious belief and social indicators is a pervasive strain of authoritarian psychology in this society, as expounded, for example, by John Dean in his recent book Conservatives Without Conscience. Harris goes on to refer to the comparatively secular states of the Northeast in the U.S. But the secularism he refers to is in large part not a matter of an absence of religious belief, but rather the positions that religion should be a private matter, that there should be a strict separation of church and state, that you can't legislate morality, and so on. These positions are functions of a liberal, nonauthoritarian psychology, which affects both the type of religious belief one holds and one's political/social stances. The latter are not somehow caused by a lack of the former; the reverse is the case. A significant percentage of northeastern secularists are in fact religious. If they were in a position to shape and implement public policy (as they're just beginning to be now, with the election of a Democratic Congress), we might well see a change for the better in our social indicators to bring them closer to what we see in Europe. But we wouldn't necessarily see a decline in religious belief per se, simply a lessening of the power to affect social indicators of the kind of religious belief that stems from an authoritarian psychology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yu have to be pretty extreme to go with that idea about backpacks and blowing yourself up. Even the idea that God wants you to be celibate before marriage is pretty hard for most people to work with. The weird thing is that I seem to read another human bomb going off every few days in Baghdad. It really freaks me out. I recall on the eve of the Iraq war, MMY said George W. Bush would be opening the gates of Hell. He was right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
Judy, Thanks for the long response. It has helped me understand where we are seeing this discussion differently. I also really enjoy the fact that your take on it is very personal and that you haven't drunk from either glass of KoolAid! My lips are stained with Sam's POV, but that doesn't mean I don't want to examine it critically. This quote from Sam may be a good starting point: But you are saying quite a bit more than that. You are claiming to know that God exists out there. As such, you are making tacit claims about physics and cosmology and about the history of the world. What is more, these are claims that you have just pronounced unjustified, unjustifiable, and yet impervious to your own powers of doubt. My take on this discussion is that Sam is trying to have a philosophical discussion with a person who is not trained to think that way so there is no common ground for the discussion. Where you and I differ, I think, is that you are saying that belief in miracles is different than the belief that God exists or that Jesus died for our sins. I don't think this is accurate according to epistemological rules for supporting a belief. The content does not matter, just the evidence. I think you are also seeing the nature of a belief in God as being un provable by its very nature. So it does not have to exist within the rules for evidence we use for other beliefs. But in Christian doctrine there is evidence which is presented as persuasive devises. They are also bad evidence. Miracles in the Bible is not a straw man. It is one of the two legs of the New Testament's advocacy for us to believe in the divinity of Jesus. The other one you deftly knocked down in a previous post concerning the fulfillment of the Jewish prophesies. Andrew is being a bit evasive on which of the supporting beliefs of his faith he is choosing to include. He is not just a generic Christian, he is a Catholic. If the word has any meaning it would include a whole bunch of un disclosed beliefs about how the world is. Here is another point I think we disagree on. As in Sam's quote above, the belief in God is a statement about facts and the world. This is Sam's central point. These beliefs are not unsupportable by their nature. They are poorly supported by bad reasons. This style of ignoring these bad reasons and giving people a pass because of the psychological value of these beliefs (Bush's claim that Jesus saved him from being a drunk) is not an epistemological get out of Jail Free card. Andrew's appeal to the history of Christianity and its popularity as a cultural idea is a perfect example of his inability to consider any epistemological rules. By his logic we should all be worshipers of lingums and yonies because that idea is much older. (I am quite sympathetic for a case for yoni worship BTW) Because Andrew has not really revealed the structure of his belief system in a coherent way, there is no way to argue against his position philosophically. Because he is the one with an assertion, it would be up to him to provide the reasons for his beliefs. I think he is either smart enough to avoid this kind of discussion, or her genuinely doesn't understand how philosophers like Sam argue ideas. It takes specific training so that ideas can be evaluated according to epistemological criteria. The kind of assertions Andrew is making wouldn't cut it in a freshman philosophy debate. (the idea has merit because it is believed by lots of people through history? Blogger please! That play on Nigga Please was a great throwaway joke on Andrew's part early on in the discussion.) Andrew believes in Christianity's claims because it gives him a personal value. It has a physiological and he would say spiritual value for him. These are not beliefs that he cares to draw out and examine in the way Sam is inviting. I don't blame him for that. It shows me that the Muslim fanatics who are willing to kill themselves to take a few of us infidels out with them will not be changing their minds anytime soon. Even smart articulate guys like Andrew cannot examine the reasons for his cherished beliefs in a critical way. He just can't get over the deeply held psychological grip that keep these beliefs unquestioned in our modern world. Interestingly, Andrew probably rejects the belief in Zeus for the same good reasons Sam rejects his Christianity. I think I understand how you and Sam agree concerning the value of meditation experiences and the states they open. Thanks again for taking the time for this discussion. Thinking about this stuff in detail is a real pleasure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I've been giving a lot of thought to this discussion. I wrote a bunch of things that I never posted. We are seeing Sam's points so differently. I think you are reading in a lot of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
I really dug that book. Nice quote. It seems to me that most modern people in the West have diminished the role of their faith as something they pull out at special occasions out of cultural habit rather than a profound faith. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:01 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I think Andrew is really interesting and his Blogger please line forever warmed me to him. But I think it is as impossible for him to understand where Sam is coming from as it is for me to understand where you are coming from, for different reasons. Anyway both these guys are bringing this discussion out and that makes me incredibly happy. This is an important topic for me. Check out this quote: While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the red states are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of crime, 62% are in blue states and 38% are in red states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities in the United States, 76 percent are in red states, 24% in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates if theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red. from _Letter to a Christian Nation_ by Sam Harris
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
On Feb 23, 2007, at 11:28 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I really dug that book. Nice quote. It seems to me that most modern people in the West have diminished the role of their faith as something they pull out at special occasions out of cultural habit rather than a profound faith. Unfortunately, it seems there is too much about it we still cling to in this country. Presidential elections is just one area where this plays far too prominent a role. In many ways, it is literally killing us.
[FairfieldLife] David Swallow, Lakota Medicine Man Lecture in Fairfield, Iowa
: David Swallow, Lakota Medicine Man Lecture - Fairfield, Iowa This is an invitation to attend a very special talk by a highly revered medicine man at a meeting set for Thursday March 1 at 7:00 pm In the evening at Revelations upstairs. Use the door to the left of the main door by the Alleyway. Concerning the medicine man: Name: David Swallow Jr.; Ogallala Lakota Medicine Man From: Pine Ridge Reservation; Porcupine, South Dakota (3miles north of Wounded Knee) David Swallow: 1) Is descended from the line of Crazy Horse, his father being Traditional Grand Chief 2) Is a powerful voice for the good of man 3) Lectures on the Native American of today, yesterday and tomorrow 4) Performs the Lakota Sacred Ceremonies 5) Makes the Lakota Way available to those who can appreciate its Life message 6) Does healing ceremonies for people in need - EXTREMELY POWERFUL Suggested Donation at the door $7.00
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is Duveyoung ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize to Offworld -- I lost control and just started typing and I got low and mean while doing it, my bad -- I study astronomy and whatever he saw in the sky wasn't a short-lived supernova -- it could have been as simple as two dust motes colliding in space at thousands of miles per second and producing an explosion that only he saw, but it sure wasn't a whole star blowing up and completely going dark in a short time. Even a white dwarf that sucks material off a companion star will not blow off that material -- as it does regularly -- in any kind of flash bulb way. It could have been almost anything BUT a supernova. Even if the speed of light, etc., were different 10 billion years ago, it would be very difficult to imagine conditions that would produce a flashbulb supernova. That's a very gracious apology, but you might want to conside making one to the rest of us as well. Several people *did* attempt to point out to Offworld that there was no such thing as a flashbulb supernova, yet you shrieked rather nastily at all of us for not having corrected him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is Duveyoung ?
I apologize to Offworld -- I lost control and just started typing and I got low and mean while doing it, my bad -- I study astronomy and whatever he saw in the sky wasn't a short-lived supernova -- it could have been as simple as two dust motes colliding in space at thousands of miles per second and producing an explosion that only he saw, but it sure wasn't a whole star blowing up and completely going dark in a short time. Even a white dwarf that sucks material off a companion star will not blow off that material -- as it does regularly -- in any kind of flash bulb way. It could have been almost anything BUT a supernova. Even if the speed of light, etc., were different 10 billion years ago, it would be very difficult to imagine conditions that would produce a flashbulb supernova. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Dude, you've never posted here in your life before, and you are saying you will stop coming here? In addition, you obviously have a very poor understanding of astro-physics, and in addition are in the lagging portion of the evolving human species. Duveyoung is most likely Edg Duveyoung, and he's been a lurker on FFL for quite some time. My recollection is that he and his family used to live in Fairfield. You might want to do a Google search on his name, http://tinyurl.com/2dnkc2 , and check out his recent comments on the Centauri Dreams site. Thanks, can't be the same guy though, because he accused me here of being dangerous for having radical ideas like short lived supernovas, whereas this Duveyoung you speak of is broadcasting MUCH MORE radical ideas such as matter being an epiphenomenon of consciousness. Therefore, the two people must be different. One of them has no problem discussing radical ideas, while the one on here is going insane over a mildy challenging idea. Thanks though, appreciate it. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is Duveyoung ?
That's a very gracious apology, but you might want to conside making one to the rest of us as well. Several people *did* attempt to point out to Offworld that there was no such thing as a flashbulb supernova, yet you shrieked rather nastily at all of us for not having corrected him. Okay, I apologize for that too. Anyone else want a piece of this? My frustration with this whole group is that scholarship is so spotty. You let the nuts get away with so much crap that besmirches sound thinking -- because there's just so much wrong being displayed here that you would have to spend your whole lives here trying to educate them. And I haven't come up with a solution for this any more than the rest of you. That's why I've lurked for years -- why get into lose/lose scenarios? Look at what a mess I made of it responding to someone pontificating about astronomy! And worst, sooner or later I will be pontificating just as badly and be in denial about it. I'm about to post a long explanation of my present philosophy. Maybe it'll get something going here that I can be satisfied with. We'll see. I'll take a chance. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 22, 2007, at 10:14 PM, tanhlnx wrote: ---Vaj, you're not making sense. Regardless of the purpose, yidam (god) worship is all the same, call it what you want; but much of Tibetan Buddhism is similar to the god-worship of the Hindus. Even the iconography is similar, say Mahakali vs the same Mahakali in Hinduism; Ganesh worship in both religions. There are countless Hindus who regard these gods as wisdom-enhancing focal points; just as in your erronous rendition of Buddhism. Just the fact of the matter--of course you're welcome to entertain whatever belief you chose. Just don't call it Buddha-dharma. MY understanding of Buddha-dharma is better'n yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM?
[FairfieldLife] The Fanatic's Mindset Revealed (was Re: Andrew Skolnick revealed)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, peterklutz peterklutz@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Sure speaks volumes about the value of TM, eh? Just volumes about you, you m¤%/%#g satanist Wow. Peter's not only paranoid and near-incoherent, he can't even spell m¤%Ð#358;#1101;#g right. A wonderful example of how people who are proven wrong may react: (1) in their reply censor out the stuff that prove them to be lying, cheating bastards harbouyring ulterior motives; (2) attempt to attack the messenger. The way to do it, is (1) to defeat someone with logic; AND (2) finish them off with a literary coup de grace. So, TB, you are a m¤%/%#g satanist aught lying and you should put a knife to your m¤%Ð#358;#1101;#g scrotum, thus sparing humanity further genetic contamination. Um, Peter, you're still banned from Wikipedia, are you not? No. Why do you ask? Just that little exchange above would result in banning. If you'd care to read the responses to the 'exchange' you'll notice that it has provoked OffWorld and TB to finally id:ed themselves as symphatizers with Satanist. It has been noted that this quite astounding revelation causes lesser concern with you than pererklutz' ramblings. Who are you, sparaig, really? Someone who appreciates irony and sarcasm better than you, I'm sure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yu have to be pretty extreme to go with that idea about backpacks and blowing yourself up. Even the idea that God wants you to be celibate before marriage is pretty hard for most people to work with. The weird thing is that I seem to read another human bomb going off every few days in Baghdad. It really freaks me out. I recall on the eve of the Iraq war, MMY said George W. Bush would be opening the gates of Hell. He was right. Actually, that was John-Paull II's representative, not MMY. MMY merely referred to him as a rakshasa a few days after he was elected, and said that his bombing tendencies would drag the entire world into a war.
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the clarity that Ramana and Nisargadatta show in their conceptual packages was/is stellar by comparison. The Advaitan writers here have produced some clear statements, and I would suggest that they would benefit from practicing Advaitan thinking more, so that their brains grow the neurons that can produce thoughts that spontaneously and easily cut through the obfuscations that other philosophical stances obsess about. The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. I miss L.B. -- not sure if he's an Advaitan -- I think he told me once that he'd considered it, but it was so last week to him now -- but if he were here with his wonderfully stubborn clarity and had at it with the Advaitans about the Gita -- well, that would be a world class event. Recently a concept came to me for the first time -- it was that my intellect is at peace, and -- if you'll permit me to use the word enlightenment in a new way -- that this peace is a form of partial enlightenment. That means that my intellect is resonant with Advaita to such a degree that I'm no longer a seeker -- intellectually. I conceptually identify with the Absolute. This is merely one kind of getting free of attachment. Make no mistake, Ramana and Nisargadatta seemed to be at peace and free of all the other kinds of identification too -- not just intellectually being able to have correct thoughts about identification. The meat robot prison we're all incarcerated within still has a myriad of activities that commandeer my identification. I identify with them despite my intellectual peace. I can be intellectually sure that I am not this robot, but just try to harm it, and I'm on red alert. That's the tell. Withdrawing one's hand from a hot stove requires no intellect -- see? There's a lot of other activities other than seeking wisdom that my identification has not yet gotten free from. The methods a seeker needs to get free of all the other tar-babies are numerous. Ways to get the body free of artificial influences that heighten excitation that attracts attention that attracts identification are there, hatha yoga for instance, but there are many others that put together programs that help one's physiology to quiet down. There are many psychological methods to get the emotions into balance and thus dampen identification. There are ways to approach the Godhead with methods that quiet down the bhakti addictions and support absorption and unity. And on and on goes the list of ways to quiet down the various meat robot activities. We all hoped or still hope that TM's method gave/gives us a holistic activity that achieves all the goals of the eight-fold path, and thus be a capture the fort technique, but I don't think it does. Transcending into being is about loosening the bonds of identification with manifestation -- NOT improving manifestation and making it all the more alluring. That's why the TMP now has all these methods for dealing with the problems of robot-hood. The seekers wanted a makeover of their prison cells more than their identificational freedom. The TM method of using a mantra takes one to being, but one is still identified with being. Residing in being eventually allows the outer addictions to fade through disuse, but the self-inquiry techniques of Advaita are asking one to try to look into one's own eyes and by doing so discover that, well, no one is there -- silence is the result of self inquiry. Being
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
Guru Dev, in his capactity as a traditional Hindu Jadaguru, probably would have found a way to get your friend to stop stalking him and instead practice the faith s/he was born into. jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: A friend of mine does this toohe keeps a picture of Guru Dev in and sometimes asks it questions, (he may even pray to it). I think he got the idea from the book The whole thing, the real thing on Guru Dev. Recent Activity 4 New Members Visit Your Group Search Ads Get new customers. List your web site in Yahoo! Search. Y! GeoCities Share Your Passion Join the web's lar- gest community. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . - Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?
An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents. More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/what-would-you-do-if-bush_b_41674.html Of course the Vedic chanters and bun hoppers will keep this all from happening, right?
[FairfieldLife] How big is that war in Iraq anyway?
from a story reported today... In a largely invisible cost of the war in Iraq, nearly 800 civilians working under contract to the Pentagon have been killed and more than 3,300 hurt doing jobs normally handled by the U.S. military, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press. The U.S. has outsourced so many war and reconstruction duties that there are almost as many contractors (120,000) as U.S. troops (135,000) in the war zone. Employees of defense contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwater and Wackenhut cook meals, do laundry, repair infrastruture, translate documents, analyze intelligence, guard prisoners, protect military convoys, deliver water in the heavily fortified Green Zone and stand sentry at buildings often highly dangerous duties almost identical to those performed by many U.S. troops.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yu have to be pretty extreme to go with that idea about backpacks and blowing yourself up. Even the idea that God wants you to be celibate before marriage is pretty hard for most people to work with. The weird thing is that I seem to read another human bomb going off every few days in Baghdad. It really freaks me out. I recall on the eve of the Iraq war, MMY said George W. Bush would be opening the gates of Hell. He was right. Actually, that was John-Paull II's representative, not MMY. MMY merely referred to him as a rakshasa a few days after he was elected, and said that his bombing tendencies would drag the entire world into a war. I'm quite sure MMY said this. I probably have the mp3 somewhere...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best snowboarding video ever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from another website: http://tinyurl.com/36sd2k Amazing...and, how he overcame doubt and fear, the two great enemies holding man back from his innate infinite potential. And *faith* shall move mountains.WOW!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev, in his capactity as a traditional Hindu Jadaguru, probably would have found a way to get your friend to stop stalking him and instead practice the faith s/he was born into. Guru Dev appears sometimes, regardless of faith. He is who He is. No moodmaking about it though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. snip Thanks for sharing this- I enjoy reading about our journeys from personal to universal identification and all the bus stops in between. I know what you mean to have finally grown the neurons or found the pathway to them anyway to comprehend some of the stuff talked about by Masters. When I picture myself these days, it is like one of those cruller type donuts, kind of ragged around the edges, with infinite space in the middle and around the outside. That desire edge or boundary of the donut is where the individual me lives, as a brilliant convenience. In the meantime, someone or something keeps eating the donut.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?
Given the way peoples rights are trampled on today, I wonder what Martial Law will look like? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents. More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/what-would-you-do-if-bush_b_41674.html Of course the Vedic chanters and bun hoppers will keep this all from happening, right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Yes, I have found the same thing- a similar process of experimentation and effect, using the resulting effect as the basis for further experimentation, and so on. I don't do this when I am meditating because if I did, it wouldn't be TM. (Possibly a case can be made for TM to progress in this way, but without conscious intent or manipulation.) However I have used this method successfully in all sorts of other ways to further my subjective discovery of myself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best snowboarding video ever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: from another website: http://tinyurl.com/36sd2k Amazing...and, how he overcame doubt and fear, the two great enemies holding man back from his innate infinite potential. And *faith* shall move mountains.WOW! I just couldn't believe the slope he was 'boarding- they said 60 degrees, and it even looked steeper than that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. If, that is, anyone were so attached to Advaita evangelism to try. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
Look, I'm a big fan of SBS - two giant intellects, Radhakrishnan and Schilpp, were absolutely in awe when they met the guy so who am I to argue. When he appears again please ask him what he thinks of the many-sided exploits of his Brahmachari Mahesh. jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev, in his capactity as a traditional Hindu Jadaguru, probably would have found a way to get your friend to stop stalking him and instead practice the faith s/he was born into. Guru Dev appears sometimes, regardless of faith. He is who He is. No moodmaking about it though. - Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
It's reassuring to know that MMY and JPII were on the same page. jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yu have to be pretty extreme to go with that idea about backpacks and blowing yourself up. Even the idea that God wants you to be celibate before marriage is pretty hard for most people to work with. The weird thing is that I seem to read another human bomb going off every few days in Baghdad. It really freaks me out. I recall on the eve of the Iraq war, MMY said George W. Bush would be opening the gates of Hell. He was right. Actually, that was John-Paull II's representative, not MMY. MMY merely referred to him as a rakshasa a few days after he was elected, and said that his bombing tendencies would drag the entire world into a war. I'm quite sure MMY said this. I probably have the mp3 somewhere... - Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, Thanks for the long response. It has helped me understand where we are seeing this discussion differently. I also really enjoy the fact that your take on it is very personal and that you haven't drunk from either glass of KoolAid! My lips are stained with Sam's POV, but that doesn't mean I don't want to examine it critically. This quote from Sam may be a good starting point: But you are saying quite a bit more than that. You are claiming to know that God exists out there. As such, you are making tacit claims about physics and cosmology and about the history of the world. Is that what Sullivan is doing? What are the tacit claims he's making in these areas? What is more, these are claims that you have just pronounced unjustified, unjustifiable, and yet impervious to your own powers of doubt. Again, it seems to me that Harris is making a *category mistake* to insist that the claims Sullivan is making require scientific justification. Faith is *by definition* unjustifiable via scientific epistemology. Why is Harris trying to put faith into the same slot as science and evaluate it by scientific standards? My take on this discussion is that Sam is trying to have a philosophical discussion with a person who is not trained to think that way It appears to me to be *bad philosophy* not to make a distinction between the epistemology of science and the epistemology of faith. I really can't get past that basic error in Harris's reasoning. Harris is essentially saying, You can't prove this with the tools of science, so you should not believe it. Sullivan is saying, You can't *disprove* this with the tools of science, so why *shouldn't* I believe it? Harris wants to put Sullivan's beliefs on the same level as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But as Sullivan points out, there's a *lot* more evidence--not proof, evidence--for the validity of Christian belief. It isn't *scientific* evidence, because in the first place it's indirect (e.g., its long history), and in the second place we have no way of measuring it accurately. It's as if Harris were demanding that somebody prove he's in love. so there is no common ground for the discussion. Where you and I differ, I think, is that you are saying that belief in miracles is different than the belief that God exists or that Jesus died for our sins. I don't think this is accurate according to epistemological rules for supporting a belief. The content does not matter, just the evidence. Addressed above, more or less. I think you are also seeing the nature of a belief in God as being un provable by its very nature. So it does not have to exist within the rules for evidence we use for other beliefs. But in Christian doctrine there is evidence which is presented as persuasive devises. IMHO, Christianity shouldn't even bother. It's capitulating to the demand for something it shouldn't have to provide. They are also bad evidence. Miracles in the Bible is not a straw man. It is one of the two legs of the New Testament's advocacy for us to believe in the divinity of Jesus. The other one you deftly knocked down in a previous post concerning the fulfillment of the Jewish prophesies. Andrew is being a bit evasive on which of the supporting beliefs of his faith he is choosing to include. He is not just a generic Christian, he is a Catholic. If the word has any meaning it would include a whole bunch of un disclosed beliefs about how the world is. Maybe, maybe not. But it's dirty pool for Harris to *assume* he would do so and then argue against them. And remember, again, that Sullivan is an unrepentant gay, so he obviously doesn't buy Catholic doctrine hook, line, and sinker. snipping stuff I've already addressed They are poorly supported by bad reasons. This style of ignoring these bad reasons and giving people a pass because of the psychological value of these beliefs (Bush's claim that Jesus saved him from being a drunk) is not an epistemological get out of Jail Free card. Well, no, but my disagreement with Harris is that I don't think anybody should be sentenced to jail in the first place for having these beliefs without being able to support them via scientific epistemology. Andrew's appeal to the history of Christianity and its popularity as a cultural idea is a perfect example of his inability to consider any epistemological rules. By his logic we should all be worshipers of lingums and yonies because that idea is much older. I don't think he's suggesting we *should* all believe in Christianity; he's giving a reason why *he* believes in Christianity. Actually he's not even really doing that with his appeal to the history of Christianity. He's asking Harris to *empathize* with his belief, not to join him in it--asking Harris to see if he can understand why a reasonable,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
On Feb 23, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. I don't know if you saw it here or not, but Nisargadatta's only book (in his own words) is now on the web. A real eye opener (no pun intended), esp. if you are used to ones written via his students.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best snowboarding video ever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from another website: http://tinyurl.com/36sd2k Crazy, but did you notice that every single shot was stretched vertically by at least 25%. Even the people's heads talking are stretched. There is a lot of that going on these days. Sad really, since it would have been a perfectly good video without the deliberate exaggeration of the peak and the slope. Definate fake vertical stretch all over this video changing the dramatic look profoundly. But I wish snowboarders would stay off piste. It is the best place for them, as they mess up the ski slopes by scraping their way down the slope, and turning perfectly good snowy slopes into ice, then screwing up the moguls because they can't run them properly, so the moguls become huge icy mounds, not proper muguls. my rant :-( OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
On Feb 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. If, that is, anyone were so attached to Advaita evangelism to try. :-) Neoadvaita's become such an ego trip, I'd hardly be surprised. Praise Shankara! Can I roll you a cigarette? Puleeeze.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the clarity that Ramana and Nisargadatta show in their conceptual packages was/is stellar by comparison. Could you provide us with a few examples?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Advaita Tradition
On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Chadwick wrote: The daSanAmI sampradAya: The daSanAmI order is so called because of the ten (daSa) name (nAma) suffixes which these sannyAsIs adopt. These names are - bhAratI, sarasvatI, sAgara, tIrtha, purI, ASrama, giri, parvata, araNya and vana. These ten names are supposed to be distributed among the four maThas. However, the affiliation is nominal at best. The daSanAmI sannyAsIs do not have to be ordained at one of the maThas...(and on and on ad nauseum). Thanks for posting that. And people wonder why India is such a mess. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look, I'm a big fan of SBS - two giant intellects, Radhakrishnan and Schilpp, were absolutely in awe when they met the guy so who am I to argue. When he appears again please ask him what he thinks of the many-sided exploits of his Brahmachari Mahesh. the many-sided exploits of his Brahmachari Mahesh. You've answered your own question. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best snowboarding video ever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: from another website: http://tinyurl.com/36sd2k Crazy, but did you notice that every single shot was stretched vertically by at least 25%. Even the people's heads talking are stretched. There is a lot of that going on these days. Sad really, since it would have been a perfectly good video without the deliberate exaggeration of the peak and the slope. Definate fake vertical stretch all over this video changing the dramatic look profoundly. But I wish snowboarders would stay off piste. It is the best place for them, as they mess up the ski slopes by scraping their way down the slope, and turning perfectly good snowy slopes into ice, then screwing up the moguls because they can't run them properly, so the moguls become huge icy mounds, not proper muguls. my rant :-( OffWorld Yep, I know what you mean about the stretch.
[FairfieldLife] Loads of Boyfriendz?
http://www.nndb.com/people/509/23440/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
Ed (I think that's your name), while I applaud your openmindedness in exploring other avenues of intel- lectual inquiry, your rap below leaves me wondering whether you've ever had the experience of Self realization. It doesn't sound that way. What it sounds like is that you've merely traded up, and exchanged one way of intellectualizing *about* enlightenment for another. While I may appreciate the Advaitan approach *to* intellectualizing about enlightenment more than Maharishi's approach to intellectualizing *about* enlightenment, I have to say that I don't mistake either for the experience of enlightenment. When that happens -- be it for a long time (years or decades) or a short time (just a few weeks or days) -- one of the first thing one tends to notice is that *all* of one's intellectual reading *about* enlightenment wasn't really...uh...worth the paper it was printed on. You realize that not only is the map not the territory, but the whole *concept* of trying to map it is laughable. If I'm wrong, and you're basing what you call your partial enlightenment on your readings of and inquiries into Advaita PLUS some strong, lasting, subjective experiences of enlightenment, please correct me. But it really sounds as if you're basing this sense of intellectual peace on intellectual effort and understanding alone, with no personal experiences of enlightenment to back it up. If that is so, I don't see your new path as being that much different than your old path. Intellectualize *about* enlightenment using Ramana's glasses, intellectualize *about* enlightenment using Maharishi's. What's the difference if you're not living enlightenment? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the clarity that Ramana and Nisargadatta show in their conceptual packages was/is stellar by comparison. The Advaitan writers here have produced some clear statements, and I would suggest that they would benefit from practicing Advaitan thinking more, so that their brains grow the neurons that can produce thoughts that spontaneously and easily cut through the obfuscations that other philosophical stances obsess about. The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. I miss L.B. -- not sure if he's an Advaitan -- I think he told me once that he'd considered it, but it was so last week to him now -- but if he were here with his wonderfully stubborn clarity and had at it with the Advaitans about the Gita -- well, that would be a world class event. Recently a concept came to me for the first time -- it was that my intellect is at peace, and -- if you'll permit me to use the word enlightenment in a new way -- that this peace is a form of partial enlightenment. That means that my intellect is resonant with Advaita to such a degree that I'm no longer a seeker -- intellectually. I conceptually identify with the Absolute. This is merely one kind of getting free of attachment. Make no mistake, Ramana and Nisargadatta seemed to be at peace and free of all the other kinds of identification too -- not just intellectually being able to have correct thoughts about identification. The meat robot prison we're all incarcerated within still has a myriad of activities that commandeer my identification. I identify with them despite my intellectual peace. I can be intellectually sure that I am not this robot, but just try
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip While I may appreciate the Advaitan approach *to* intellectualizing about enlightenment more than Maharishi's approach to intellectualizing *about* enlightenment, Did you miswrite here, Barry?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the clarity that Ramana and Nisargadatta show in their conceptual packages was/is stellar by comparison. As was my conclusion as well when I compared Yogananda's to MMY's. But you must remember MMY's Gita was never meant to be the final word on the subject.read the disclaimer in the introduction!! snip to end...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yogananda on contacting your guru after he has died
Ha, hahe may be praying to win the lottery as far as I know. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guru Dev, in his capactity as a traditional Hindu Jadaguru, probably would have found a way to get your friend to stop stalking him and instead practice the faith s/he was born into. jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Feb 22, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Mr. Magoo wrote: A friend of mine does this toohe keeps a picture of Guru Dev in and sometimes asks it questions, (he may even pray to it). I think he got the idea from the book The whole thing, the real thing on Guru Dev. Recent Activity 4 New Members Visit Your Group Search Ads Get new customers. List your web site in Yahoo! Search. Y! GeoCities Share Your Passion Join the web's lar- gest community. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . - Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, Another good pointyou'll notice he refers to brahmi-sthiti, the state of Brahman, as Cosmic Consciousness, I thought it was Unity? page 369HB Go figure? Earlier he goes on to say Cosmic Consciousness is the basis of God Consciousness...go figure? How do you go from Brahman then back to GC and then turn around and come back to Brahman or Cosmic Consciousnessoh, I have a headache! P.S. I have since resolved the riddle, so I'm not asking!! I'm just validating your fuzzy comment!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
I wrote a bunch of stuff but I am going to sit on it a while and try to edit it down a bit. Starting with the highest knowledge first Nigga please is ebonics for disdainful incredulity. That is the whitest way that term has ever been defined! Here is a Chris Rock Parody on the term: http://youtube.com/watch?v=w1I_ozVln3wmode=relatedsearch=
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Except, that there's no knowing in the scientific sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yu have to be pretty extreme to go with that idea about backpacks and blowing yourself up. Even the idea that God wants you to be celibate before marriage is pretty hard for most people to work with. The weird thing is that I seem to read another human bomb going off every few days in Baghdad. It really freaks me out. I recall on the eve of the Iraq war, MMY said George W. Bush would be opening the gates of Hell. He was right. Actually, that was John-Paull II's representative, not MMY. MMY merely referred to him as a rakshasa a few days after he was elected, and said that his bombing tendencies would drag the entire world into a war. I'm quite sure MMY said this. I probably have the mp3 somewhere... MMY's remarks received no press. The Vatican Rep's remarks received a LOT of press.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote a bunch of stuff but I am going to sit on it a while and try to edit it down a bit. Starting with the highest knowledge first Nigga please is ebonics for disdainful incredulity. That is the whitest way that term has ever been defined! Here is a Chris Rock Parody on the term: http://youtube.com/watch?v=w1I_ozVln3wmode=relatedsearch= Got it. Thank you!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
Any distinction between these states of consciousness is ultimately an illusion. Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, Another good pointyou'll notice he refers to brahmi-sthiti, the state of Brahman, as Cosmic Consciousness, I thought it was Unity? page 369HB Go figure? Earlier he goes on to say Cosmic Consciousness is the basis of God Consciousness...go figure? How do you go from Brahman then back to GC and then turn around and come back to Brahman or Cosmic Consciousnessoh, I have a headache! P.S. I have since resolved the riddle, so I'm not asking!! I'm just validating your fuzzy comment! - Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Except, that there's no knowing in the scientific sense. In the case of TM, it's If you want to know the Self...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any distinction between these states of consciousness is ultimately an illusion. ...and apparently one you don't get!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
Indifference to the gunas, acheived through a knowledge of the nature of Purusha, is termed 'paravairagya' (supreme detachment). --Patanjal 1.16 I think the spirit of this sutra can be seen to apply to all three (or four) higher states; but still... Any distinction between these states of consciousness is ultimately an illusion. ...and apparently one you don't get! - Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!
[FairfieldLife] 3-year-old genius artist
No kidding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrdRrAjpcDM
[FairfieldLife] Conservapedia
Cite Your Sources! A conservative online encyclopedia? It's true! Check out Conservapedia, "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."Just for fun, I typed in a few entries, like evolution, just to see what would pop into view. I did this this morning, and read, "Evolution has largely been discredited, but is forced on schools by activist judges." That sentence, 8 hours later, has been removed. Obviously word has been traveling fast, prompting the edits! The revised entry boasts a different opening sentence in the second paragraph: "Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. " Sure, the sentence lacks a verb; but given the original sentence I read this morning and mentioned above, a sentence without actual meaning seems a mark of true progress. The entry on Charles Darwin contains the opening line:People who write articles shouldn't misspell "deathbed" and "accept," or "occurred."The entry also lists Darwin's birth to a "Christian family" without citing sources. I do love the fact that the picture of Mr. Darwin faced his entry with a scowl, just as I positioned it here.Speaking of paleontology, check out the entry on dinosaurs:Creationists believe, based on archeological and Biblical evidences, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week[1], between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants[2]; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning[3]; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood[4]; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today[5].Of course, citation number 5 comes from a web page with the picture shown above on its header. The same people also brought you this:Should we keep reading? You be the judge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Except, that there's no knowing in the scientific sense. In the case of TM, it's If you want to know the Self... Er, no, because until you reach CC, there's no guarantee that you will ever have a clear episode of TC, and once you reach CC, there's no you knowing the Self, and there's never any knowing in the scientific sense of the term anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Except, that there's no knowing in the scientific sense. In the case of TM, it's If you want to know the Self... Er, no, because until you reach CC, there's no guarantee that you will ever have a clear episode of TC, and once you reach CC, there's no you knowing the Self, and there's never any knowing in the scientific sense of the term anyway. You're completely missing the point, especially your last item here.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Conservapedia
On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Vaj wrote: Should we keep reading? You be the judge. Maybe we should start writing--there aren't any pages yet on on TM or MMY. But here's the one on our favorite fallen angel: Satan (from the Hebrew ha-satan, accuser) was a member of the divine council who rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell, where he leads a host of fallen angels (or demons). Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to exorcise his influence. Barry, maybe you could provide some up-to-the-minute insights on his activities in the present. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Conservapedia
On Feb 23, 2007, at 8:55 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Vaj wrote: Should we keep reading? You be the judge. Maybe we should start writing--there aren't any pages yet on on TM or MMY. A hard link to satan should be sufficient. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita = my experience too
Hi Edg, Excellent ! Thank you for sharing this. Parallels my own experiences. 25 years believing MMY almost completely, but not quite. Yogananda's SRF church nearby was very helpful in giving me some balance. And, of course, my good karma to take care of parents 20 years instead of working close with MMY was truly God's Grace. Then 1995, a HUG from Amma and FREEDOM! Lots of bhakti for several years, to wash away the stuckness and frustrations of MMY dogmas which, NOW, do not make sense at all. Around 1997, 121 Pundits came to Stroutsburg, PA( Poconos ) to do an 11 day Ati Rudra Maha Yajnam. The center is connected with the Shankaracharya of the South who sent a beautiful swami to represent him. The Swami was tall and with his danda(sp?) pole reminded me of pictures of Guru Dev. A couple of TM Siddhas, friends of mine, had a private audience with the Swami. They asked about MMY. He replied that the only thing he heard was : Apparently MMY visited the Shankaryacharya some time ago. And after MMY had left, the Shankaryacharya commented to the Swami that MMY's mind was a complete mess, a supermarket, not quiet at all. Supposedly, the Shankaracharya successions in the South were never broken and seemingly free from scandals. Then 2004, after 6 months with Amma at her Amritapuri ashram, both my partner and I were guided to read : I Am That, Nothing Ever Happened, The Truth Is, Power of Now, Silence of the Heart, Daughter of Fire, Imitation of Christ, Be As You Are, Loving What is and more recently Adyashanti's True Meditation-CD, Emptiness Dancing Also, will be reading soon Impact of Awakening 5* reviews Amazon. And of course still reading the 9 volumes of Awaken Children on the spoken words of Mata Amritanandamayi; vol 7 is the quintessence of Vedanta if you want to start with that and perhaps backtrack vol 6, 5; vol 1 is excellent to see how Amma started. Anyway, the only other gentle suggestions I have are: I feel I know what you meant by your use of the word conversion. But, would like to add that, real advaitins are not interested in converting anybody. I read Ramana Maharshi 36 years ago, but was not ready. I thought that MMY made more sense at the time and I actually felt a lot of love from him and for him. Times change. Still love him for getting me started on the spiritual path, just do not believe a word he says. Also, instead of your words to look into one's eyes, I would say, Look and see if you can find the Seer( the `I' ) BEHIND your eyes? Who is it that is seeing through your eyes? Check out www.mooji.org and get a great recipe for a Mooji Masala Chai; Also, check out www.satsangwithstuart.com Stuart gave us Heart is Thy Name O Lord on Ramana's teachings Both of these are the real deals and have nothing to sell. Mooji recently did his first US tour( Boston, NYC, Maryland, Philly, and Kripalu ). Mooji is the epitome of what his Guru Papji recommended 50% jnani and 50% bhakti; he doesn't teach bhakti, he is bhakti. As I see it, the essence of advaita, for starters, is to want to really know Who Am I? Do whatever it is you are going to do. Have spiritual experiences, or whatever, but inquire sincerely who is the I having the experience? If we must state a goal it is to Awaken to our true nature not necessarily to have spiritual experiences. God Bless, anatol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita -- reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conservapedia
---Update on Satan: He was converted to Buddhism about a year ago, and is currently working with Jesus to rescue Souls from the lower astral. On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Vaj wrote: Should we keep reading? You be the judge. Maybe we should start writing--there aren't any pages yet on on TM or MMY. But here's the one on our favorite fallen angel: Satan (from the Hebrew ha-satan, accuser) was a member of the divine council who rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell, where he leads a host of fallen angels (or demons). Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to exorcise his influence. Barry, maybe you could provide some up-to-the-minute insights on his activities in the present. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita = my experience too
---Thanks - get The Sage of Arunachala DVD from http://www.arunachala.org (send a check right now to their address in NY for $25...; write in keep the change - should cost about $23 but $25 will cover it.). Note: this is a self-destruct DVD since it makes you self- destruct. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amarnath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Edg, Excellent ! Thank you for sharing this. Parallels my own experiences. 25 years believing MMY almost completely, but not quite. Yogananda's SRF church nearby was very helpful in giving me some balance. And, of course, my good karma to take care of parents 20 years instead of working close with MMY was truly God's Grace. Then 1995, a HUG from Amma and FREEDOM! Lots of bhakti for several years, to wash away the stuckness and frustrations of MMY dogmas which, NOW, do not make sense at all. Around 1997, 121 Pundits came to Stroutsburg, PA( Poconos ) to do an 11 day Ati Rudra Maha Yajnam. The center is connected with the Shankaracharya of the South who sent a beautiful swami to represent him. The Swami was tall and with his danda(sp?) pole reminded me of pictures of Guru Dev. A couple of TM Siddhas, friends of mine, had a private audience with the Swami. They asked about MMY. He replied that the only thing he heard was : Apparently MMY visited the Shankaryacharya some time ago. And after MMY had left, the Shankaryacharya commented to the Swami that MMY's mind was a complete mess, a supermarket, not quiet at all. Supposedly, the Shankaracharya successions in the South were never broken and seemingly free from scandals. Then 2004, after 6 months with Amma at her Amritapuri ashram, both my partner and I were guided to read : I Am That, Nothing Ever Happened, The Truth Is, Power of Now, Silence of the Heart, Daughter of Fire, Imitation of Christ, Be As You Are, Loving What is and more recently Adyashanti's True Meditation-CD, Emptiness Dancing Also, will be reading soon Impact of Awakening 5* reviews Amazon. And of course still reading the 9 volumes of Awaken Children on the spoken words of Mata Amritanandamayi; vol 7 is the quintessence of Vedanta if you want to start with that and perhaps backtrack vol 6, 5; vol 1 is excellent to see how Amma started. Anyway, the only other gentle suggestions I have are: I feel I know what you meant by your use of the word conversion. But, would like to add that, real advaitins are not interested in converting anybody. I read Ramana Maharshi 36 years ago, but was not ready. I thought that MMY made more sense at the time and I actually felt a lot of love from him and for him. Times change. Still love him for getting me started on the spiritual path, just do not believe a word he says. Also, instead of your words to look into one's eyes, I would say, Look and see if you can find the Seer( the `I' ) BEHIND your eyes? Who is it that is seeing through your eyes? Check out www.mooji.org and get a great recipe for a Mooji Masala Chai; Also, check out www.satsangwithstuart.com Stuart gave us Heart is Thy Name O Lord on Ramana's teachings Both of these are the real deals and have nothing to sell. Mooji recently did his first US tour( Boston, NYC, Maryland, Philly, and Kripalu ). Mooji is the epitome of what his Guru Papji recommended 50% jnani and 50% bhakti; he doesn't teach bhakti, he is bhakti. As I see it, the essence of advaita, for starters, is to want to really know Who Am I? Do whatever it is you are going to do. Have spiritual experiences, or whatever, but inquire sincerely who is the I having the experience? If we must state a goal it is to Awaken to our true nature not necessarily to have spiritual experiences. God Bless, anatol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita - - reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3-year-old genius artist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No kidding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrdRrAjpcDM OMG ! OW
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. If, that is, anyone were so attached to Advaita evangelism to try. :-) I thought you might chime in about that. That area of the Venn diagram where Advaitans and Buddhists agree, what percentage is that for you? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Mahatma Gandhi on the Gurus.
--- \\\ \ | /// // | / \\\~ ~/// ( @ @ ) -OOo-(_)-oOOo Man is but the product of his Thoughts What He thinks, He becomes - Mahatma Gandhi oooO( ) ( )) / \ ((_/ \_) --- ---
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--Who is the I that's reading Nisargadatta Maharaj? - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita - - reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. Then I read Maharishi's Gita for the last time -- this was years ago now -- and I found that Maharishi's use of language was intolerably fuzzy. He didn't use the words consciousness, witness, self, being, spiritual, transcend, etc. with consistency, and well, frankly failed to show any clarity about the subtle distinctions of identification. I was amazed, because I was sold out to Maharishi for so long and was quite satisfied with his Gita commentary, but that final reading was very frustrating because Maharishi just didn't handle the deep concepts -- the delicacies of consciousness -- to me it was a failure in scholarship which was so egregious that Maharishi's cogency became suspect, and the clarity that Ramana and Nisargadatta show in their conceptual packages was/is stellar by comparison. Could you provide us with a few examples?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sullivan replies to Sam Harris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Ken Wilber makes a great case that the epistemology of subjective exploration (i.e., exploration of consciousness) proceeds by the same fundamental rules as the scientific method, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Now, how could you, a TMer, possibly believe that ANY case can be made for this, given your experience with TM? Read the case, Lawson. He makes it in his book Eye to Eye. Wilber uses Zen as an example of how it works in practical terms, but TM is actually an example as well. You start with an instrumental injunction: If you want to know *this*, do *this*. You follow the instrumental injunction and apprehend the data (or Datum, in this case). Then you validate your results by comparing them with those of others who have followed the same instrumental injunction. Wilber goes into a lot more detail, but that's basically the idea. It's more complicated and trickier when you're dealing with subjective investigation; you can do it properly only with a highly systematic injunction (If you want to know whether God answers prayers, pray for something isn't systematic enough); and for validation you need to have a bunch of people who have scrupulously followed the same injunction. But stripped down to its essentials, it's the same as the scientific method. Except, that there's no knowing in the scientific sense. In the case of TM, it's If you want to know the Self... Er, no, because until you reach CC, there's no guarantee that you will ever have a clear episode of TC, and once you reach CC, there's no you knowing the Self, and there's never any knowing in the scientific sense of the term anyway. You're completely missing the point, especially your last item here. I guess...
[FairfieldLife] On Yogananda after death.
One of my former Gurus (Dyanyogi Madhusadandasji )came to L.A. in 1976, the East-West Cultural center. Right in front of our group, he hyperventilated while in a lotus position and fell flat on his face. He then traveled out of his body for about 20 min. After coming back into his body, he said he was communicating with Yogananda. http://www.dyc.org/ My Kriya Yoga Guru, Swami Satyeswarananda, said that Yogananda was only in CC, not Unity. (personal communication, 1982). http://www.Sanskritclassics.com/aboutbaba.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3-year-old genius artist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: No kidding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrdRrAjpcDM OMG ! OW Did you see the video for using your cellphone to enhance your wifi sensitivity? When the kid appears on TV, believe it. Until then...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conservapedia
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Vaj wrote: Should we keep reading? You be the judge. Maybe we should start writing--there aren't any pages yet on on TM or MMY. But here's the one on our favorite fallen angel: Satan (from the Hebrew ha-satan, accuser) was a member of the divine council who rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell, where he leads a host of fallen angels (or demons). Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to exorcise his influence. Barry, maybe you could provide some up-to-the-minute insights on his activities in the present. I would, but I've been busy working on the article about Peter Klutz. It has to be done before his big celebrity...uh...roast.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conservapedia
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, qntmpkt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Update on Satan: He was converted to Buddhism about a year ago, and is currently working with Jesus to rescue Souls from the lower astral. No, that's Sam Harris. Last time I saw him at one of our parties, Satan told ME that he had gotten bored with the evil thang and was now into practical jokes. He went on and on about the millions of tubes of K-Y Jelly he'd put sand into, stuff like that. Then again, the dude was 'way drunk and was making out with Hillary Clinton, so it's not as if we should believe everything he says... On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Vaj wrote: Should we keep reading? You be the judge. Maybe we should start writing--there aren't any pages yet on on TM or MMY. But here's the one on our favorite fallen angel: Satan (from the Hebrew ha-satan, accuser) was a member of the divine council who rebelled against God and was cast from Heaven to reign over Hell, where he leads a host of fallen angels (or demons). Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God, by tempting or tricking them. The only sources of supernatural power in the world are from either God (good) or Satan (evil). Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth, although priests are able to exorcise his influence. Barry, maybe you could provide some up-to-the-minute insights on his activities in the present. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: The Buddhists here could be converted to Advaita, methinks. If, that is, anyone were so attached to Advaita evangelism to try. :-) I thought you might chime in about that. That area of the Venn diagram where Advaitans and Buddhists agree, what percentage is that for you? As the olde Advaitan koan of self inquiry goes, Who is it that is trolling? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Gita Commentaries compared to Advaita
---Good start! Next stop, Rainbow Light Body. Don't forget the DNA which has been around for about 3 billion years. It's craving to get fully free of Entropy. Entropy is what did in all the DNA of the great Masters of the past, with a few exceptions such as Padma Sambhava. Don't let your cells get eaten by worms! No Diet of Wurms for medraw the line against Entropy and don't give into physical death. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Quote: Mr Magoo, please! MMY's translation is for the superior intellect...the gyaniwhile Yogananda's is for the mushy bhakti. Yogananda is the lotus and MMY is the jewel sitting in it. Over my 30 years of being in the TMP, I studied Maharishi's Gita - - reading it perhaps four or five times -- and in the margins, my notes were keeping track of red flags in the commentaries that I had questions about. After the TMO cult-veil was torn from my eyes by harsh life lessons, I read the books of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta until I felt resonant -- intellectually -- with their Advaitan views. This took about four years of reading them about 30 minutes a day. It wasn't about logic, it was about absorbing, growing neurons, and finally having a brain that COULD have an intellectual clarity about identification. snip Thanks for sharing this- I enjoy reading about our journeys from personal to universal identification and all the bus stops in between. I know what you mean to have finally grown the neurons or found the pathway to them anyway to comprehend some of the stuff talked about by Masters. When I picture myself these days, it is like one of those cruller type donuts, kind of ragged around the edges, with infinite space in the middle and around the outside. That desire edge or boundary of the donut is where the individual me lives, as a brilliant convenience. In the meantime, someone or something keeps eating the donut.
