[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

So, you had
   better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
   adverse karma as a result.
  
  ...so it's still a crapshoot.
 
 Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
 behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
 or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.

There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
*own* state of attention as a measure of right 
and wrong.

That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
state of attention changes all the time; it's just
that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
to minute. The training involves discerning which 
shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).

Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
as you act and make your way through the world.
If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
state of attention goes down, you can pretty
much be sure that your choice of action in that
context was wrong, or at least not as right
as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
then you did the right thing.

This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
right on, sometimes it's not.

But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
of attention as a guideline.

The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
attention to the students and then varying them some-
what and asking them what they perceived when the 
shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
course, is that when you do wrong you only really
find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
attention has started to slide down. The latter
becomes less and less of a problem as you become
used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
you can make such decisions in microseconds.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Yagya performance

[pratap Mahapatra]

Live life in accordance to the principles of Veda.
  For Yagya Pandits, they should do Trikal Sandya daily. Trikal Sandya is a 
vedic ritual to maintain purity. They should have satvic food. There are many 
others things they should follow.

Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  How do you define vedic lifestyle?

pratap Mahapatra wrote:
 Yes, it should read trained people but they should have a vedic lifestyle. 
 They should be dedicated to preserve the purity. Looking into the sheet for 
 the chanting is not bad. Checking these people is hard if they are good or 
 not. Anyway, if they do not do good they are responsible for their act. By 
 cheating they will earn bad karma and they will pay for that.

 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vaj wrote:
 
 On Mar 12, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Preeti wrote:

 
 What determines that the group performing the Yagya
 is highly evolved? For example, does the price
 charged correspond to their level of evolution?
 
 No. price charged dpends upon who charge? You have to check it by
 participating in a performance. There are many professionals and
 organisations offering this service. You have to pick a good one.
 
 How would you know they are evolved or are all the people who perform 
 these yagyas evolved?

 How would you avoid getting an unevolved person?
 
 He should have probably said trained people instead of highly 
 evolved. I've seen Hindu priests do pujas reading them out of a book 
 or piece of paper. I would bet you could find plenty of Hindu priests 
 reading the mantras for the yagyas off a sheet of paper too. You don't 
 have to have brown skin to do yagyas. :)



 

 
 -
 Finding fabulous fares is fun.
 Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and 
 hotel bargains.
 
 -
 Never miss an email again!
 Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
 



 

 
-
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Exodus: Influx to Florida of French Jews who fear persecution in France

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Rod Kukurudz decided to uproot his family from a comfortable life in
 France to Surfside when his then 16-year-old daughter, Audrey, came 
 home one night in 2005 -- upset and fearful.
 
 Dad, she told him, now even if it's hot I have to wear a scarf to
 hide my Star of David, while riding the Paris Metro.
 
 French Jews living in South Florida told The Miami Herald that 
 hostility from Islamic militants in France after the Sept. 11, 
 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States spurred them to 
 leave. Departures surged after last year's abduction and death of 
 Ilan Halimi in France.
 
 The 23-year-old Halimi, a French Jew of Moroccan parents, was 
 kidnapped Jan. 21, 2006, by a gang of youths calling themselves 
 the `Barbarians.
 
 The atmosphere created by that episode, plus other incidents and 
 the general hostility of Muslims in France toward Jews, is what's 
 behind my decision to leave, said Kukurudz, who now lives with 
 his wife and their three daughters, including Audrey, in Surfside.
 
 Vanessa Elmaleh is among a growing number of South Florida 
 immigration attorneys helping French Jews secure U.S. visas -- 
 but not necessarily asylum.
 
 Asking for asylum can be risky, said Elmaleh, a French Jew 
 herself. ``If they deny your petition, they can deport you.
 
 Immigration court figures show a slight uptick in the number of 
 asylum applications from French nationals starting in 2003 -- but 
 those figures do not specify whether applicants were French Jews. 
 South Florida immigration attorneys say the majority of French 
 Jews are arriving on immigrant, investor and business visas.
 
 Kukurudz, for example, obtained an investor visa with Elmaleh's 
 help and now runs Citizen Events, organizing events for companies 
 and organizations.
 
 Pascal Cohen left his family behind in France and arrived in 
 Aventura a few weeks ago on a business visa to open a South Florida 
 subsidiary of a high-end chocolate brand called Cote de France. His 
 wife and two young daughters plan to leave France and join him later
 this year.
 
 There are no official U.S. government figures on the number of 
 French Jews here, but officials in U.S. Jewish organizations said 
 it could be anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 in South Florida -- mostly 
 Miami-Dade.
 
 I would say they're in the thousands now, said Mendy Levy, a rabbi 
 at The Shul synagogue in Surfside.
 
 There is no question of an increase in the number of French Jews in
 South Florida, and there's an expectation that that rate of increase
 will accelerate, said Jacob Solomon, executive vice president of 
 the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. 'French Jews see the 
 handwriting on the wall and say, `We're not going to wait until 
 it's too late.' 
 
 None of the French Jews interviewed was attacked in France, but all
 expressed fears the Halimi incident was a preview of more militant
 violence to come.
 
 The latest State Department human rights report, issued last week, 
 cited more anti-Semitic incidents in France during the first nine 
 months of 2006 than during the same period in 2005 -- but fewer 
 than in the first nine months of 2004.
snip

I suspect that the real story behind this story is in 
the last paragraph above. There has been *no real change*
in the number of anti-Jewish incidents in France.

What has happened is that a number of people who wanted
to emigrate to the U.S., and were faced with quotas and
heavy bureaucracy, have discovered an easier way of doing
so -- claim that they are being persecuted and claim asylum.

I live in France. I watch the papers here. Incidents of
anti-Semitism are well-covered when they happen. Such 
incidents are rare, and when they happen they are pros-
cecuted to the max. Sadly, a number of them (six at least
in the three years I've been here) are even *fictional*.
In one such fictional incident that made headlines, a 
Jewish girl claimed to have been assaulted on a well-lit 
train by a gang of Arabic toughs. After the investigation,
it turned out that the girl, out past her curfew with her
boyfriend, made the entire incident up in order to stay
out of trouble with her strict parents. 

There is another factor that, in my opinion, leads to
stories like these, and that is the unreasoning paranoia
and self-importance that some people -- of ANY religion 
and nationality -- have developed in the face of world
terrorism. When I worked as a consultant in the midwest
(Minneapolis and Madison, Wisconsin, hardly backwater
towns), I encountered people who worked in the insurance 
companies for which I consulted who were *afraid* to go
about the daily routine of leading their lives, *for 
fear of being killed by terrorists*. They drove straight
to work and straight home afterwards. They no longer
shopped in shopping malls, and they had all their 
groceries delivered to their houses so that they didn't
need to leave them to go to the store. And 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jesus and the Terminator

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Va7MXZhco

Hilarious. Thanks for posting this.

[FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[george_deforest]

Press release  --  March 12, 2007 -- For Immediate Release

230-DAY UPDATE FROM THE
INVINCIBLE AMERICA ASSEMBLY

America's Dramatic New Peace Outreach
To Iran, Syria, and North Korea

Due to Rise of Coherent National Consciousness
Created by Group of 1600 Advanced Meditators in Iowa

U.S. Consumer Confidence Remains High
Despite Tumult in Global Stock Markets

  

U.S. TURNAROUND WITH AXIS OF EVIL NATIONS

==

Associated Press: U.S. in groundbreaking talks with North Korea —The
United States and North Korea have begun unprecedented talks in New
York in a first step toward normalizing ties after 50 years of
tensions and cementing Pyongyang's commitment to scrapping its nuclear
arms program.

Washington Post : It's called diplomacy —The clearest example of the
administration's new outreach is its turnabout on discussions with
Iran and Syria about how to stabilize Iraq.

Boston Globe : Diplomacy yielding results —The Bush administration's
new emphasis on old-fashioned diplomacy with North Korea, Iran, and
Syria appears to be bearing fruit.

--

The sudden turnaround in U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, Syria, and
North Korea—a dramatic shift away from confrontation and belligerence
towards consensus building and peace—is the direct result of the
increased coherence in national consciousness created by the large
group of 1600 advanced Transcendental Meditation program experts in Iowa.

This is the assessment of world-renowned quantum physicist Dr. John
Hagelin, who is leading the Invincible America Assembly at Maharishi
University of Management and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa—the largest
scientific demonstration project ever to monitor the effects on
national trends of a group of advanced meditation experts.

The Assembly was launched 230 days ago on July 23, 2006, by Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi to create coherent national consciousness—the basis of a
peaceful, prosperous, invincible country.

Marked transformation in U.S. foreign policy
since the launch of the Invincible America Assembly

Since the launch of the Assembly and the rise of coherent national
consciousness, U.S. foreign policy has undergone a series of marked
transformations, beginning in early August with the U.S.-forged
ceasefire on the Israeli-Lebanon border—a Mideast flashpoint for
decades that is now in its seventh peaceful month. The November
elections then brought in new congressional leadership supportive of
the peace process. And now, the U.S. has joined talks with Iran and
Syria in Baghdad to resolve the Iraq war—and is in serious
negotiations with North Korea to put an end to the volatile and
longstanding nuclear crisis.

At the same time, since the start of the Assembly, the U.S. economy
has enjoyed sustained growth, with the Dow climbing more than 1500
points—while oil prices have fallen from a high of $78 a barrel in
July to the under $62 a barrel. And despite the recent tumult in
global market prices, U.S. consumer confidence remains high, according
to a March 6 ABC News/Washington Post survey. That confidence is
another sign of coherent national consciousness, Dr. Hagelin said.

Positive trends predicted publicly in advance

Dr. Hagelin said that rigorous statistical analysis shows that the
upsurge of positive trends—predicted publicly in advance—started when
an initial group of 1200 experts in Maharishi's Transcendental
Meditation program and its advanced techniques, including Yogic
Flying, first assembled in Iowa from across the U.S. and around the
world to create coherent collective consciousness—the basis of the
ongoing national transformation.

Extensive published scientific research documents the Maharishi Effect

Extensive research published in leading, peer-reviewed scientific
journals documents the reduced negative trends, including reduced
crime and violence, and improved economic and social trends when as
few as the square root of one percent of a population practice Yogic
Flying together in a group.

Scientists named this phenomenon the Maharishi Effect after
Maharishi, the renowned Vedic scholar who 50 years ago founded the
Transcendental Meditation program, and who predicted the beneficial
impact of group meditation on social trends as early as 1975. 

Group of 2000 Yogic Flyers needed to make the nation invincible

Dr. Hagelin said that the group of 1600 Yogic Flyers in the Assembly
is sufficient to produce a positive influence in the political and
economic trends of the nation, but not enough to raise the nation to
a true state of peace and invincibility.

Dr. Hagelin said that, according to research, when the number of Yogic
Flyers reaches the square root of one percent of the U.S. population
(about 2000), there will be an even more dramatic improvement in
national trends, and any lingering problems in the country will be
quickly resolved.

Invincible Assemblies being established worldwide

Dr. Hagelin added that similar Invincible Assemblies are being
established in large and small nations to form a ring of

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

woolgathering

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:42 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
enlightenment go together?

So, you had
   better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
   adverse karma as a result.
  
  ...so it's still a crapshoot.
 
 Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
 behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
 or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.

There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
*own* state of attention as a measure of right 
and wrong.

That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
state of attention changes all the time; it's just
that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
to minute. The training involves discerning which 
shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).

Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
as you act and make your way through the world.
If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
state of attention goes down, you can pretty
much be sure that your choice of action in that
context was wrong, or at least not as right
as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
then you did the right thing.

This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
right on, sometimes it's not.

But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
of attention as a guideline.

The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
attention to the students and then varying them some-
what and asking them what they perceived when the 
shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
course, is that when you do wrong you only really
find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
attention has started to slide down. The latter
becomes less and less of a problem as you become
used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
you can make such decisions in microseconds.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 woolgathering

Main Entry:
wool·gath·er·ing 
Pronunciation:
\-#716;ga-th(#601;-)ri#331;, -#716;ge-th(#601;-)ri#331;\ 
Function:
noun 
Date:
1553

: indulgence in idle daydreaming

Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting 
that one word, as opposed to how you felt before 
you pressed Send? 

I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist
tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional
Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by
some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching.
But you are free to think whatever you want, and
to react to it however you want. IMO what happens
to your own state of attention when you *do* react 
either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch
the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday
or the day before, and get back to me, eh?


 -Original Message-
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:42 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
 enlightenment go together?
 
 So, you had
better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
adverse karma as a result.
   
   ...so it's still a crapshoot.
  
  Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
  behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
  or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
 
 There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
 some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
 *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
 and wrong.
 
 That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
 variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
 day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
 state of attention changes all the time; it's just
 that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
 ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
 to minute. The training involves discerning which 
 shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
 has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
 are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
 
 Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
 this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
 as you act and make your way through the world.
 If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
 state of attention goes down, you can pretty
 much be sure that your choice of action in that
 context was wrong, or at least not as right
 as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
 in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
 then you did the right thing.
 
 This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
 looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
 right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
 Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
 of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
 might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
 about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
 and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
 right on, sometimes it's not.
 
 But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
 gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
 there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
 you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
 actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
 because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
 return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
 aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
 of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
 right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
 iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
 of attention as a guideline.
 
 The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
 discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
 taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
 attention to the students and then varying them some-
 what and asking them what they perceived when the 
 shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
 course, is that when you do wrong you only really
 find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
 attention has started to slide down. The latter
 becomes less and less of a problem as you become
 used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
 way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
 the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
 tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
 go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
 you can make such decisions in microseconds.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Mr. Magoo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 
 There are at least three. :-) 

Descrimination is a function of intuition, however, whatever works 
for you, the proof is in the puddin'. :-)

Another taught in
 some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
 *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
 and wrong.
 
 That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
 variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
 day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
 state of attention changes all the time; it's just
 that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
 ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
 to minute. The training involves discerning which 
 shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
 has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
 are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
 
 Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
 this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
 as you act and make your way through the world.
 If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
 state of attention goes down, you can pretty
 much be sure that your choice of action in that
 context was wrong, or at least not as right
 as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
 in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
 then you did the right thing.
 
 This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
 looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
 right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
 Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
 of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
 might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
 about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
 and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
 right on, sometimes it's not.
 
 But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
 gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
 there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
 you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
 actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
 because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
 return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
 aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
 of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
 right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
 iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
 of attention as a guideline.
 
 The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
 discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
 taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
 attention to the students and then varying them some-
 what and asking them what they perceived when the 
 shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
 course, is that when you do wrong you only really
 find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
 attention has started to slide down. The latter
 becomes less and less of a problem as you become
 used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
 way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
 the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
 tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
 go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
 you can make such decisions in microseconds.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote: 
  There are at least three. :-) 
 
 Descrimination is a function of intuition, however, whatever  
 works for you, the proof is in the puddin'. :-)

You may be right. However, in the traditions in which
I studied the technique I describe below, they make
a distinction between intuition (which they consider
a mechanism based mainly on emotion) and this technique
(which they consider a mechanism based upon discrim-
ination). But your last phrase is right on -- what-
ever works for you, on an ongoing basis. 

The problem with the technique I mentioned (other than 
the obvious fact that it's not taught in very many 
places or by very many teachers, and that it needs to 
be taught over a period of *years* to have any real 
value) is that it involves DOING. It's a technique and 
an approach that appeals to those of us who believe in 
free will and using that free will to determine the 
right course of action. Plus, it only works if you 
actually practice it; if you get lazy and forget 
mindfulness and forget to notice your fluctuating 
states of attention, then you gain no benefit from 
the technique.

Such a technique is NOT going to appeal to those who
believe that they *have* no free will and that all
their actions are controlled by some deity or by some
set of laws of nature, and that thus they have no 
control over those actions.

Theoretically, a better approach to discerning 
right action would be to become in tune with the
laws of nature, as Maharishi describes, and act 
spontaneously rightly all of the time. Unfortunately,
I think that most of us, having been around strong
TMers and the TM movement and Maharishi himself for
decades, can see that this theory doesn't seem to
work out in practice. I don't know about you, but
I see NO DIFFERENCE in the actions of long-term TMers
and in non-meditators. None. Nada. Rien. Bupkus.
Thus I have come to believe that this theory -- that
the longer one meditates the more right one's actions
naturally become -- is seriously flawed, if not total
fantasy. *Being* a strong believer in free will and
the value of intent, I lean towards approaches that
utilize those human characteristics, and that involve
mindfulness. Your mileage may vary, and that is 
perfectly OK.


  Another taught in
  some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
  *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
  and wrong.
  
  That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
  variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
  day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
  state of attention changes all the time; it's just
  that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
  ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
  to minute. The training involves discerning which 
  shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
  has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
  are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
  
  Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
  this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
  as you act and make your way through the world.
  If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
  state of attention goes down, you can pretty
  much be sure that your choice of action in that
  context was wrong, or at least not as right
  as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
  in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
  then you did the right thing.
  
  This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
  looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
  right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
  Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
  of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
  might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
  about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
  and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
  right on, sometimes it's not.
  
  But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
  gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
  there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
  you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
  actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
  because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
  return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
  aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
  of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
  right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
  iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
  of attention as a guideline.
  
  The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
  discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
  taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
  attention to the students and then varying them some-
  what and asking them what they perceived when the 
  shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
  course, is that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[claudiouk]

I think goodness and enlightenment would HAVE to be strongly 
correlated - they'd make better bedfellows than the opposite: imagine 
an enlightened Hitler or torturer.. makes no sense.

Granted that any individual act may invariably have some unfathomable 
bad as well as good consequences, in the Relative; however my 
understanding of enlightenment is that one no longer identifies with 
the narrow-minded, defended, selfish ego (which even disappears, I'm 
told), and thereby one becomes more CAPABLE of goodness, in the sense 
of broader awareness and concern for other people's welfare (eg 
parable of good Samaritan). Hence people who are genuinely expressing 
these finer values in their lives must be doing so because of their 
refinement of BEING. So I presume that, in extremis, living ONLY from 
the level of universal Being, one would spontaneously be expressing 
predominantly universal values - goodness. Like Jazz, it may be 
difficult to describe precisely but you would know it if you 
saw/heard it...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Granted the world's great religions like Christianity, Buddhism, 
 Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism and Islam all preach being 'good' and 
 doing 'good'. Because most if not all of the spiritual teachers in 
the 
 world have had exposure to religion, they too profess being 'good' 
as 
 a condition for enlightenment.
 
 But why is this then taken as a truth? In some religions, like 
 Christianity and Buddhism, being 'good' and doing 'good' are seen 
as 
 major cornerstones to achieving salvation. There are some on this 
 forum who have said it is more enlightened if someone does 'good', 
 than if they meditate, so this idea is widespread.
 
 What is the reason for this? Is it because we just thoughtlessly  
 associate being 'good' with being enlightened? Or is there a 
direct, 
 provable and causal link between being 'good' and attaining 
 enlightenment?
 
 I don't think there is any connection between the two, at all.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

The reason I call it woolgathering is because what you wrote and what
pundits do was entirely one and the same. In the sense that anyone can
really say they apply some valuable technique and say it's from some
tradition, but it's just...wishful thinking. 


-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:35 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
enlightenment go together?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 woolgathering

Main Entry:
wool.gath.er.ing 
Pronunciation:
\-#716;ga-th(#601;-)ri#331;, -#716;ge-th(#601;-)ri#331;\ 
Function:
noun 
Date:
1553

: indulgence in idle daydreaming

Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting 
that one word, as opposed to how you felt before 
you pressed Send? 

I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist
tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional
Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by
some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching.
But you are free to think whatever you want, and
to react to it however you want. IMO what happens
to your own state of attention when you *do* react 
either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch
the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday
or the day before, and get back to me, eh?


 -Original Message-
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:42 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
 enlightenment go together?
 
 So, you had
better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
adverse karma as a result.
   
   ...so it's still a crapshoot.
  
  Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
  behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
  or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
 
 There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
 some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
 *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
 and wrong.
 
 That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
 variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
 day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
 state of attention changes all the time; it's just
 that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
 ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
 to minute. The training involves discerning which 
 shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
 has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
 are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
 
 Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
 this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
 as you act and make your way through the world.
 If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
 state of attention goes down, you can pretty
 much be sure that your choice of action in that
 context was wrong, or at least not as right
 as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
 in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
 then you did the right thing.
 
 This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
 looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
 right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
 Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
 of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
 might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
 about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
 and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
 right on, sometimes it's not.
 
 But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
 gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
 there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
 you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
 actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
 because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
 return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
 aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
 of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
 right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
 iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
 of attention as a guideline.
 
 The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
 discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
 taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
 attention to the students and then varying them some-
 what and asking them what they perceived when the 
 shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
 course, is that when you do wrong you only really
 find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
 attention has started to slide down. The latter
 becomes less and less of a problem as you become
 used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
 way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
 the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
 tion is lowering, and thus you 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The reason I call it woolgathering is because what you wrote 
 and what pundits do was entirely one and the same. 

Are you still back on pundits, and what I wrote 
about them yesterday? Sorry, I hadn't realized. To
me, that's so...so...yesterday.

Are you saying that in your opinion the pundits of
whom you speak (who, if I'm not mistaken, are from
a Hindu tradition, not a Buddhist one) attempt to
keep themselves in a higher state of attention by
*monitoring* that state of attention, and adjusting
their actions accordingly when it slips lower?

I was more under the impression that they followed
more of a scriptural path, doing the actions that
were *prescribed* for them, and thus trusting those
actions to *keep* them in higher states of attention.
I'm NOT knocking the latter approach; many people 
follow it and are happy with it. I'm just suggesting
that the two approaches -- the one I described earlier
in which one uses one's changing state of attention to
adjust one's everyday behavior, and the one in which 
one follows scriptural advice to keep one's state of
attention high -- seem to be opposites. One can believe
that one of these approaches is incorrect, and has put
the cart before the horse, but I don't see how one can
say that they are the same.

Then again, perhaps I am wrong and you know of instances
in which pundits DO use their fluctuating states of
attention to adjust their daily behavior. If you do,
do tell. I readily confess my ignorance about what 
Hindu pundits do on a daily basis.

 In the sense that anyone can really say they apply some 
 valuable technique and say it's from some tradition, but 
 it's just...wishful thinking. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here, so I have no comment.

But as a general comment, did you think I was trying to
SELL you something in my first rap on this subject? If 
so, allow me to correct that -- I have nothing to sell 
and nowhere to send you if you wanted to buy. Both of the
teachers with whom I studied this technique -- one Western,
one Tibetan -- are now dead, and thus I don't think they're
going to be teaching much of anything, unless they are 
doing so from a non-physical plane. 

I am NOT trying to convince you that I am right -- I'm
probably NOT, since I have been right about so few things
in my life (and I'm not even convinced that I exists). 
I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing 
things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's 
actions -- is wrong. For all I know, your way of seeing 
these things may be FAR more correct than mine, if such 
a thing as correct exists. I'm just expressing my 
OPINION, dude. You may do the same.


 -Original Message-
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:35 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
 enlightenment go together?
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub llundrub@ wrote:
 
  woolgathering
 
 Main Entry:
 wool.gath.er.ing 
 Pronunciation:
 \-#716;ga-th(#601;-)ri#331;, -#716;ge-th(#601;-)ri#331;\ 
 Function:
 noun 
 Date:
 1553
 
 : indulgence in idle daydreaming
 
 Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting 
 that one word, as opposed to how you felt before 
 you pressed Send? 
 
 I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist
 tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional
 Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by
 some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching.
 But you are free to think whatever you want, and
 to react to it however you want. IMO what happens
 to your own state of attention when you *do* react 
 either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch
 the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday
 or the day before, and get back to me, eh?
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
  Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:42 AM
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
  enlightenment go together?
  
  So, you had
 better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
 adverse karma as a result.

...so it's still a crapshoot.
   
   Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
   behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
   or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
  
  There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
  some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
  *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
  and wrong.
  
  That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
  variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
  day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
  state of attention changes all the time; it's just
  that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
  ination to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Granted the world's great religions like Christianity, Buddhism, 
 Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism and Islam all preach being 'good' and 
 doing 'good'. Because most if not all of the spiritual teachers 
 in the world have had exposure to religion, they too profess 
 being 'good' as a condition for enlightenment.
 
 But why is this then taken as a truth? In some religions, like 
 Christianity and Buddhism, being 'good' and doing 'good' are 
 seen as major cornerstones to achieving salvation. There are 
 asome on this forum who have said it is more enlightened if 
 someone does 'good', than if they meditate, so this idea is 
 widespread.
 
 What is the reason for this? Is it because we just thoughtlessly  
 associate being 'good' with being enlightened? Or is there a 
 direct, provable and causal link between being 'good' and 
 attaining enlightenment?
 
 I don't think there is any connection between the two, at all.

Jim, I've been staying out of this because 1) I really
don't have that much interest in theoretical discussions
about enlightenment, and 2) I don't have much to contribute
to the question you pose.

About the only thing I think I DO have to contribute is
a reminder of one of Maharishi's teachings that I still
believe is accurate -- knowledge is different in different
states of consciousness. I would extend that to ...in
different states of *attention*, which includes any and
all of the 10,000 states of mind within, say, the 
waking state.

So when a teacher teaches something, it's always in a 
*context*. He or she is teaching at a particular moment
in time ( even though time doesn't exist :-) and in a 
particular context and to a particular group of seekers
( none of whom exist, either :-). And so at any given
moment in time, and in any given context, and for any
given group of students, the teacher may be *emphasizing*
a particular teaching, AS SEEN FROM A PARTICULAR
STATE OF ATTENTION.

Thus, in one moment, and context, and with a certain
group of students who can benefit from that teaching,
the teacher may *emphasize* the value of doing good
works or of acting rightly. The next day the same
teacher could teach the EXACT OPPOSITE, and be correct
in doing so, because it's a different moment, a different
context, and a different group of students. And even if
the group of students is the same, hopefully their 
state of attention is not the same as it was yesterday.
If it is, they didn't learn much, did they? :-)

For me the bottom line is that I don't know what causes
or even facillitates enlightenment, and doubt that I 
ever will. I DO tend to believe, based on my own exper-
ience and the experience of many others, that performing
actions that one can feel are somehow wrong* is just a
GREAT way to lower one's state of attention, and quickly.
But whether that lowering of their state of attention
has any effect on when or whether they'll realize their
enlightenment, I don't know.

I now leave you to get back to the other threads in this
discussion. Carry on...

[FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[nablusoss1008]

 YES-I know, the numbers in Iowa
 are for  
  America only-then why is John talking about the relationship of
 America to  
  Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lebanon got half
  blown up last summer. 

You didn't get the point Lou. The relationship between the USA and 
other nations are somewhat warming up. And that is a great improvment 
from the american side versus how relationships have been the last 
years. Doesn't mean the terrorism created by the americans will stop, 
or that justice suddenly will prevail, or that the Palestinians all of 
a sudden will have their homeland back, but it is definately an 
improvement. And who knows; it could very well be an effect of the 
Maharishi Effect.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Magoo wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
  wrote: 
   There are at least three. :-) 
  
  Descrimination is a function of intuition, however, whatever  
  works for you, the proof is in the puddin'. :-)
 
 You may be right. However, in the traditions in which
 I studied the technique I describe below, they make
 a distinction between intuition (which they consider
 a mechanism based mainly on emotion) and this technique
 (which they consider a mechanism based upon discrim-
 ination). But your last phrase is right on -- what-
 ever works for you, on an ongoing basis. 
 
 The problem with the technique I mentioned (other than 
 the obvious fact that it's not taught in very many 
 places or by very many teachers, and that it needs to 
 be taught over a period of *years* to have any real 
 value) is that it involves DOING. It's a technique and 
 an approach that appeals to those of us who believe in 
 free will and using that free will to determine the 
 right course of action. Plus, it only works if you 
 actually practice it; if you get lazy and forget 
 mindfulness and forget to notice your fluctuating 
 states of attention, then you gain no benefit from 
 the technique.
 
 Such a technique is NOT going to appeal to those who
 believe that they *have* no free will and that all
 their actions are controlled by some deity or by some
 set of laws of nature, and that thus they have no 
 control over those actions.

Whether it appeals to people who hold such a
belief wouldn't have anything to do with the
belief *unless* they misunderstood what the
belief implies. One could hold such a belief
and still find this technique appealing.

 Theoretically, a better approach to discerning 
 right action would be to become in tune with the
 laws of nature, as Maharishi describes, and act 
 spontaneously rightly all of the time. Unfortunately,
 I think that most of us, having been around strong
 TMers and the TM movement and Maharishi himself for
 decades, can see that this theory doesn't seem to
 work out in practice. I don't know about you, but
 I see NO DIFFERENCE in the actions of long-term TMers
 and in non-meditators. None. Nada. Rien. Bupkus.

But you wouldn't see any difference, that's
the thing. The theory doesn't have any
implications for what actions look like in
practice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So, you had
better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
adverse karma as a result.
   
   ...so it's still a crapshoot.
  
  Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
  behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
  or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
 
 There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
 some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
 *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
 and wrong.
 
 That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
 variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
 day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
 state of attention changes all the time; it's just
 that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
 ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
 to minute. The training involves discerning which 
 shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
 has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
 are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
 
 Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
 this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
 as you act and make your way through the world.
 If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
 state of attention goes down, you can pretty
 much be sure that your choice of action in that
 context was wrong, or at least not as right
 as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
 in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
 then you did the right thing.
 
 This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
 looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
 right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
 Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
 of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
 might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
 about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
 and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
 right on, sometimes it's not.
 
 But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
 gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
 there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
 you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
 actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
 because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
 return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
 aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
 of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
 right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
 iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
 of attention as a guideline.
 
 The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
 discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
 taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
 attention to the students and then varying them some-
 what and asking them what they perceived when the 
 shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
 course, is that when you do wrong you only really
 find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
 attention has started to slide down. The latter
 becomes less and less of a problem as you become
 used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
 way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
 the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
 tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
 go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
 you can make such decisions in microseconds.


[Dryly] Works very well in your case, Unc.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub llundrub@ wrote:
 
  woolgathering
 
 Main Entry:
 wool·gath·er·ing 
 Pronunciation:
 \-#716;ga-th(#601;-)ri#331;, -#716;ge-th(#601;-)ri#331;\ 
 Function:
 noun 
 Date:
 1553
 
 : indulgence in idle daydreaming
 
 Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting 
 that one word, as opposed to how you felt before 
 you pressed Send? 
 
 I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist
 tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional
 Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by
 some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching.
 But you are free to think whatever you want, and
 to react to it however you want. IMO what happens
 to your own state of attention when you *do* react 
 either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch
 the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday
 or the day before, and get back to me, eh?

How did you feel after you pressed send when you posted the What TMers 
Believe 
volumes I and II?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  So, you had
 better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will have 
 adverse karma as a result.

...so it's still a crapshoot.
   
   Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
   behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
   or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
  
  There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
  some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
  *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
  and wrong.
  
  That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
  variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
  day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
  state of attention changes all the time; it's just
  that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
  ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
  to minute. The training involves discerning which 
  shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
  has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
  are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
  
  Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
  this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
  as you act and make your way through the world.
  If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
  state of attention goes down, you can pretty
  much be sure that your choice of action in that
  context was wrong, or at least not as right
  as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
  in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
  then you did the right thing.
  
  This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
  looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
  right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
  Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
  of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
  might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
  about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
  and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
  right on, sometimes it's not.
  
  But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
  gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
  there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
  you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
  actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
  because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
  return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
  aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
  of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
  right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
  iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
  of attention as a guideline.
  
  The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
  discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
  taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
  attention to the students and then varying them some-
  what and asking them what they perceived when the 
  shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
  course, is that when you do wrong you only really
  find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
  attention has started to slide down. The latter
  becomes less and less of a problem as you become
  used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
  way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
  the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
  tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
  go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
  you can make such decisions in microseconds.
 
 [Dryly] Works very well in your case, Unc.

I haven't been practicing it. I'm still not,
but I'm considering taking it up again.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

I am NOT trying to convince you that I am right -- I'm
probably NOT, since I have been right about so few things
in my life (and I'm not even convinced that I exists). 
I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing 
things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's 
actions -- is wrong. For all I know, your way of seeing 
these things may be FAR more correct than mine, if such 
a thing as correct exists. I'm just expressing my 
OPINION, dude. You may do the same.

--Your not right. What you stated was not your opinion, it was your
attempt to intimidate through supposed superior knowledge, but that
knowledge was merely copied from someone else.  Moreover, adjust ones
actions is not the method of vipassana. Nor of shamatha. Rather, Shamatha
is calm abiding, what TM er's call Samadhi, and vippassana is the method of
gaining Buddha's insight into ones aggregated nature to discern the meaning
of the words of the Buddha from the Nikaya standpoint.  Neither is used for
'adjusting' ones behavior, but rather is used for discerning ones behavior.
If that leads to 'adjustments' then that's great, if not, then that's great.
Don't attempt to try to understand a Tantric Buddhist. At any rate, not with
your superficial Buddhist patronymics.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub llundrub@ wrote:
  
   woolgathering
  
  Main Entry:
  wool·gath·er·ing 
  Pronunciation:
  \-#716;ga-th(#601;-)ri#331;, -#716;ge-th(#601;-)ri#331;\ 
  Function:
  noun 
  Date:
  1553
  
  : indulgence in idle daydreaming
  
  Possibly. But how do you feel now, after posting 
  that one word, as opposed to how you felt before 
  you pressed Send? 
  
  I'm asking because you claim to be from a Buddhist
  tradition, and what I wrote about is a traditional
  Buddhist teaching, one that is still taught by
  some teachers. I think it's a valuable teaching.
  But you are free to think whatever you want, and
  to react to it however you want. IMO what happens
  to your own state of attention when you *do* react 
  either verifies or disproves the teaching. Watch
  the rest of your day, and compare it to yesterday
  or the day before, and get back to me, eh?
 
 How did you feel after you pressed send when you 
 posted the What TMers Believe volumes I and II?

Pretty good. None of the quotes in them, after all,
were mine. 

I would think the more relevant question to the
technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
think of seeing your words alongside the others in
that post, and presented as if you and your words
represented TM and Maharishi?

What are YOU going to feel if/when I post THINGS
TMers BELIEVE, Volume III, and if/when you find
one or more of your quotes in it? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that I am right -- I'm
  probably NOT, since I have been right about so few things
  in my life (and I'm not even convinced that I exists). 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing 
  things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's 
  actions -- is wrong. For all I know, your way of seeing 
  these things may be FAR more correct than mine, if such 
  a thing as correct exists. I'm just expressing my 
  OPINION, dude. You may do the same.
 
 --Your not right. 

But wait. I never claimed TO be right.  :-)

 What you stated was not your opinion...

Ah, but it was. How you saw it is your business.

I leave you to that business. Have a nice day. And
if it turns out to be less than a nice day, come
back and reread this stuff and notice how you 
started it. I made NO claim of superior knowledge,
but YOU DO. I made NO ATTEMPT to intimidate, but
YOU HAVE. I mentioned NONE of the techniques you seem 
to be correcting me on below. Mote. Eye. Watch
where you're casting. :-)

 ...it was your attempt to intimidate through supposed 
 superior knowledge, but that knowledge was merely copied 
 from someone else.  Moreover, adjust ones actions is 
 not the method of vipassana. Nor of shamatha. Rather, 
 Shamatha is calm abiding, what TM er's call Samadhi, 
 and vippassana is the method of gaining Buddha's insight 
 into ones aggregated nature to discern the meaning of the 
 words of the Buddha from the Nikaya standpoint.  Neither 
 is used for 'adjusting' ones behavior, but rather is used 
 for discerning ones behavior. If that leads to 'adjustments' 
 then that's great, if not, then that's great. Don't attempt 
 to try to understand a Tantric Buddhist. At any rate, not with
 your superficial Buddhist patronymics.

By the way, with regard to your use of the word 
'patronymic' above, I refer you to the film The
Princess Bride: 

[Vizzini cuts the rope but The Dread Pirate Roberts is 
still climbing up]

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think 
it means what you think it means.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 I would think the more relevant question to the
 technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
 think of seeing your words alongside the others in
 that post, and presented as if you and your words
 represented TM and Maharishi?

You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
context, as if the posters and their words
represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
*very* low state of attention--far lower than the
posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
that many of the posters were responding to.

The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.

The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
attention.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
snip
   The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
   discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
   taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
   attention to the students and then varying them some-
   what and asking them what they perceived when the 
   shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
   course, is that when you do wrong you only really
   find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
   attention has started to slide down. The latter
   becomes less and less of a problem as you become
   used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
   way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
   the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
   tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
   go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
   you can make such decisions in microseconds.
  
  [Dryly] Works very well in your case, Unc.
 
 I haven't been practicing it. I'm still not,
 but I'm considering taking it up again.

Karma-wise, it couldn't be too soon.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ 
 wrote:
 snip
  Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be
  history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? 
  Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will 
  replace him?
 
 I think it would be terrific.
 
 I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you
 never know.

It occurs to me that one reason they might actually
jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be
to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding
scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings,
which is currently in the process of going nuclear.
So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved
in that one.


 
 I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi Rice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  I would think the more relevant question to the
  technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
  think of seeing your words alongside the others in
  that post, and presented as if you and your words
  represented TM and Maharishi?
 
 You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
 the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
 context, as if the posters and their words
 represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
 *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
 posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
 and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
 that many of the posters were responding to.
 
 The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
 of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
 beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
 the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
 supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
 No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
 the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
 
 The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
 the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
 attention.

No comment. 

Quotes of yours from the next issue, when/if I ever 
feel like posting it. No comment on them, either:

He's [TM critic, the compiler of this list of quotes]
never been able to handle challenges to his opinions; 
his freakouts typically occur when he's been getting 
more opposition than usual. This time I think there's 
just been too much of it for him to deal with. Whether 
alcohol is exacerbating things, who knows?

I think he [the compiler of this list, on which her 
quotes appear consistently, and about which quotes he 
has made absolutely no comment] may be having a breakdown. 
He's always had periodic freakouts, but I've never seen 
him in such a manic, irrational tizzy.

Same person: Wanted to add that I'm pretty sure B 
doesn't behave like this [that is, quoting *her* words
and those of others like her] in his everyday life. 
Internet forums are an outlet so that he *doesn't* 
behave like a monster otherwise.

Same person, after writing dozens of lines 'analyzing'
the person who had done nothing more than quote her, 
and other TMers like her, and who didn't respond to her 
'analysis' except to collect more of her quotes: I'm 
sure he'll 'intuit' some conclusions about me right back. 
Y'all can decide which of us has the clearer mind...

Responding to the person who suggested that this series
of quotes be archived, two different long-term TMers: 
-- You just outed yourself, R. 
-- Just what I was thinking. Moral vacuum time.

Responding to a person who had said: No one has any higher 
moral ground here. -- Only someone who, like R [founder 
of the TM-related forum on which criticism of TM is allowed],
is living in a moral vacuum could say such a thing. P.S. Sod 
off.

B, all of us--including yourself--understand what you're 
attempting here: you're trying to shut your critics up and 
suppress the pro-TM viewpoint--the views of the people you 
have declared to be 'interlopers' on this forum. R approves 
of this tactic. That speaks for itself.

Same person, a few minutes later: Geez, I certainly don't 
think it will shut anyone up, least of all me! I'm pointing 
out  that this is what *B* is hoping his quote-posting will 
accomplish.

B. Heads up, dood. What you're doing is *transparent*. You 
aren't fooling anybody. All your 'encouragement' for us to 
keep posting is part of the scheme. *Of course* you're going 
to deny you're trying to silence us. 

After having made over a dozen posts on three different 
Internet forums complaining about her words being supposedly 
being quoted out of context here: But I'm not 'upset' about 
it, to the contrary. B hasn't identified the posters, and if 
anyone did a search on the words in the quotes to find out
who wrote them, they'd also see the context. The point is 
that it's one of B's typically dishonest tactics. I mention 
it because it reflects so badly on *him*.

Same person, a few minutes later, still not upset: P.S.: 
He's even gone so far with some of the quotes as to provide 
what he *claims* to be context, except that it deliberately 
misrepresents the actual context. Most people are smart 
enough not to take seriously isolated quotes collected by 
someone who obviously has an axe to grind, even if they 
don't know how dishonest B is. And B's smart enough to know 
this too. It's just that he's not smart enough to realize 
his grandstanding here gives the game away and makes it 
clear that the exercise is aimed at the TMers on FFL, his 
critics in particular.


Cross reference to this post of mine:

In recent exchanges, Jim has suggested that I have
some kind of LIST of enlightened behaviors, ways
that the enlightened are supposed to act.

I've been pondering that, and I really don't think

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[curtisdeltablues]

was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-

That's a new one.  Is this like when a chick points to her eyes and
says, My eyes are up here buster?

 The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
 the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
 attention.

Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness?  Or is it
more like slouching?

Or should I just sod off now?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  I would think the more relevant question to the
  technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
  think of seeing your words alongside the others in
  that post, and presented as if you and your words
  represented TM and Maharishi?
 
 You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
 the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
 context, as if the posters and their words
 represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
 *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
 posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
 and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
 that many of the posters were responding to.
 
 The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
 of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
 beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
 the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
 supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
 No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
 the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
 
 The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
 the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
 attention.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

If I thought you had the slightest inkling of where I was going then I would
continue

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:28 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
enlightenment go together?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that I am right -- I'm
  probably NOT, since I have been right about so few things
  in my life (and I'm not even convinced that I exists). 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing 
  things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's 
  actions -- is wrong. For all I know, your way of seeing 
  these things may be FAR more correct than mine, if such 
  a thing as correct exists. I'm just expressing my 
  OPINION, dude. You may do the same.
 
 --Your not right. 

But wait. I never claimed TO be right.  :-)

 What you stated was not your opinion...

Ah, but it was. How you saw it is your business.

I leave you to that business. Have a nice day. And
if it turns out to be less than a nice day, come
back and reread this stuff and notice how you 
started it. I made NO claim of superior knowledge,
but YOU DO. I made NO ATTEMPT to intimidate, but
YOU HAVE. I mentioned NONE of the techniques you seem 
to be correcting me on below. Mote. Eye. Watch
where you're casting. :-)

 ...it was your attempt to intimidate through supposed 
 superior knowledge, but that knowledge was merely copied 
 from someone else.  Moreover, adjust ones actions is 
 not the method of vipassana. Nor of shamatha. Rather, 
 Shamatha is calm abiding, what TM er's call Samadhi, 
 and vippassana is the method of gaining Buddha's insight 
 into ones aggregated nature to discern the meaning of the 
 words of the Buddha from the Nikaya standpoint.  Neither 
 is used for 'adjusting' ones behavior, but rather is used 
 for discerning ones behavior. If that leads to 'adjustments' 
 then that's great, if not, then that's great. Don't attempt 
 to try to understand a Tantric Buddhist. At any rate, not with
 your superficial Buddhist patronymics.

By the way, with regard to your use of the word 
'patronymic' above, I refer you to the film The
Princess Bride: 

[Vizzini cuts the rope but The Dread Pirate Roberts is 
still climbing up]

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think 
it means what you think it means.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

Patronymics - naming a child - like naming some bastard new age technique
Buddhist. 

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:28 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
enlightenment go together?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that I am right -- I'm
  probably NOT, since I have been right about so few things
  in my life (and I'm not even convinced that I exists). 
  I am NOT trying to convince you that your way of seeing 
  things -- about pundits or about how to choose one's 
  actions -- is wrong. For all I know, your way of seeing 
  these things may be FAR more correct than mine, if such 
  a thing as correct exists. I'm just expressing my 
  OPINION, dude. You may do the same.
 
 --Your not right. 

But wait. I never claimed TO be right.  :-)

 What you stated was not your opinion...

Ah, but it was. How you saw it is your business.

I leave you to that business. Have a nice day. And
if it turns out to be less than a nice day, come
back and reread this stuff and notice how you 
started it. I made NO claim of superior knowledge,
but YOU DO. I made NO ATTEMPT to intimidate, but
YOU HAVE. I mentioned NONE of the techniques you seem 
to be correcting me on below. Mote. Eye. Watch
where you're casting. :-)

 ...it was your attempt to intimidate through supposed 
 superior knowledge, but that knowledge was merely copied 
 from someone else.  Moreover, adjust ones actions is 
 not the method of vipassana. Nor of shamatha. Rather, 
 Shamatha is calm abiding, what TM er's call Samadhi, 
 and vippassana is the method of gaining Buddha's insight 
 into ones aggregated nature to discern the meaning of the 
 words of the Buddha from the Nikaya standpoint.  Neither 
 is used for 'adjusting' ones behavior, but rather is used 
 for discerning ones behavior. If that leads to 'adjustments' 
 then that's great, if not, then that's great. Don't attempt 
 to try to understand a Tantric Buddhist. At any rate, not with
 your superficial Buddhist patronymics.

By the way, with regard to your use of the word 
'patronymic' above, I refer you to the film The
Princess Bride: 

[Vizzini cuts the rope but The Dread Pirate Roberts is 
still climbing up]

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think 
it means what you think it means.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   So, you had
  better be sure you're doing the right thing or you will 
have 
  adverse karma as a result.
 
 ...so it's still a crapshoot.

Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' 
behavior, One is scripture and the other is intuition 
or 'conscience', which is an expression of intuition.
   
   There are at least three. :-) Another taught in
   some Buddhist traditions involves assessing one's
   *own* state of attention as a measure of right 
   and wrong.
   
   That is, one is trained in discerning the minute
   variations in state of attention as it fluctuates
   day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Your
   state of attention changes all the time; it's just
   that most people haven't ever gained the discrim-
   ination to notice how *much* it changes from minute
   to minute. The training involves discerning which 
   shifts in state of attention are up (meaning one 
   has shifted to a higher state of attention) and which
   are down (shifted to a lower state of attention).
   
   Then, after having become somewhat practiced at 
   this, you just watch your *own* state of attention
   as you act and make your way through the world.
   If you perform Action X, in Context Y, and your
   state of attention goes down, you can pretty
   much be sure that your choice of action in that
   context was wrong, or at least not as right
   as it could be. Similarly, if you perform Action X
   in Context Y and your state of attention goes up,
   then you did the right thing.
   
   This -- for those who can practice it -- is actually
   looked upon as a more efficient method of determining
   right and wrong than either scripture or intuition.
   Scripture has the drawback of being fixed and unaware
   of *context*, so a rule that says Never kill pigs
   might be inappropriate in the case of a crazy pig
   about to kill a young toddler. And intuition is a hit-
   and-miss proposition for most seekers; sometimes it's
   right on, sometimes it's not.
   
   But watching one's own state of attention, once you've
   gotten the hang of it, never fails. The reason is that
   there is a long-term aspect of karma that says that if
   you do something wrong ALL of the negative energy your
   actions produce will return to you. That's long-term
   because it may take lifetimes for all that energy to
   return to you. But there is also an *instantaneous*
   aspect of karma -- do something wrong* and your state
   of attention goes down. Immediately. Do something
   right and your state of attention goes up. Immed-
   iately. Thus you can use your own fluctuating states
   of attention as a guideline.
   
   The drawbacks of this approach are two. First, the
   discrimination necessary to practice it can only be
   taught via transmission -- by broadcasting states of
   attention to the students and then varying them some-
   what and asking them what they perceived when the 
   shared state of attention changed. The second, of 
   course, is that when you do wrong you only really
   find out about it *afterwards*, as you state of 
   attention has started to slide down. The latter
   becomes less and less of a problem as you become
   used to the discernment. You *start* to act a certain
   way, get an instantaneous readout that you're going
   the wrong way by realizing that your state of atten-
   tion is lowering, and thus you correct your path and
   go a different way. The whole process is that fast;
   you can make such decisions in microseconds.
  
  [Dryly] Works very well in your case, Unc.
 
 I haven't been practicing it. I'm still not,
 but I'm considering taking it up again.

It can also be practiced just at the level of thought or intention, 
before any action is initiated. I used to do it a lot. Now, not much.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[curtisdeltablues]

Now I see you were riffing off of Turq use of the term. Should have
read them in sequence.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-
 
 That's a new one.  Is this like when a chick points to her eyes and
 says, My eyes are up here buster?
 
  The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
  the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
  attention.
 
 Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness?  Or is it
 more like slouching?
 
 Or should I just sod off now?
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   I would think the more relevant question to the
   technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
   think of seeing your words alongside the others in
   that post, and presented as if you and your words
   represented TM and Maharishi?
  
  You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
  the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
  context, as if the posters and their words
  represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
  *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
  posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
  and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
  that many of the posters were responding to.
  
  The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
  of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
  beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
  the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
  supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
  No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
  the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
  
  The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
  the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
  attention.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Central University: from announcement to web site

[Peter]

--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
   drpetersutphen@ wrote:
   

--- llundrub llundrub@ wrote:

 Sri Sri can do this.

And I'm sure MMY could too if that was his
 true
intent. In fact he already has with MIU. But
 MIU
   was
founded by people who actually knew how to
 start a
university and actually wanted to start a
   university.
This thing in Can's Ass has another
 purpose. 
   
   Keith Wallace and Nat Goldhabber knew how to
 start a
   university??
  
  Well, they did! And it was pretty good for awhile.
 
 Sigh. Wallace and Goldhabber were in their early/mid
 20s at that point, and it was luck (or 
 support of nature) as much as anything that got MIU
 going and kept it going in the early 
 days.
 
 John is  twice as old as they were, has led a
 political party for 12 years, had a political 
 battle that landed him briefly on Larry King, and
 has been dealing with life, the universe, 
 and so on in the real world  for longer than those
 two had been alive at that point.
 
 There's no question as to who knows more about
 setting up new organization: the young 
 Wallace  Goldhabber, or the current Hagelin.
 
 Mind you, I'm not expecting to win that $149,000,000
 from Jim.

I think John is more than capable of starting a
university. No problem there. The difficulty is the
constraints placed upon him and this university by
MMY. John can bring all the waking state expertise he
has to bear upon this project, but if the foundation
is waking state insane, it won't happen. You build on
strength, not empty fields in Can's ass.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



 

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Patronymics - naming a child - like naming some bastard 
 new age technique Buddhist. 


Main Entry:
pat·ro·nym·ic 
Function:
noun 
Etymology:
ultimately from Greek patronymia patronymic, from 
patr- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
1612

: a name derived from that of the father or a paternal 
ancestor usually by the addition of an affix.


...as in, Ivan Ivanovich Smegma. Ivan son
of Ivan, last name Smegma. Ivanovich is the
patronymic.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Peter]

--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine
 salsunshine@ 
  wrote:
  snip
   Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney
 might be
   history in a couple of weeks, due to health
 problems, supposedly? 
   Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do
 you imagine will 
   replace him?
  
  I think it would be terrific.
  
  I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch,
 you
  never know.
 
 It occurs to me that one reason they might actually
 jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be
 to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding
 scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings,
 which is currently in the process of going nuclear.
 So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved
 in that one.

This firing of the attornies is going to really
blow-up. Bush's hubris is finally going to catch-up to
him. He forgot that he's not king!  







 
 
  
  I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi
 Rice.
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See
 the new email design.

http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 



 

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Now I see you were riffing off of Turq use of the term. Should have
 read them in sequence.

But it's funny (at least to me) that you intuited
Sod off, because that was in the list of her
quotes that I replied with. 

Oh, and I do slouch. You got that one right, too. :-)


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-
  
  That's a new one.  Is this like when a chick points to her 
  eyes and says, My eyes are up here buster?
  
   The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
   the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
   attention.
  
  Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness?  
  Or is it more like slouching?
  
  Or should I just sod off now?
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   snip
I would think the more relevant question to the
technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
think of seeing your words alongside the others in
that post, and presented as if you and your words
represented TM and Maharishi?
   
   You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
   the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
   context, as if the posters and their words
   represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
   *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
   posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
   and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
   that many of the posters were responding to.
   
   The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
   of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
   beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
   the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
   supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
   No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
   the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
   
   The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
   the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
   attention.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:00 AM, authfriend wrote:



It occurs to me that one reason they might actually
jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be
to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding
scandals,


Whatever the reason, it would be great to see him go.


 in particular the U.S. attorney firings,
which is currently in the process of going nuclear.


Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make any difference. 
 Then again, this could be the final straw.



So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved
in that one.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

Thanks for confirming just about everything
I've said, Barry, including in your compiled
quotes. Open-and-shut case.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip
   I would think the more relevant question to the
   technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
   think of seeing your words alongside the others in
   that post, and presented as if you and your words
   represented TM and Maharishi?
  
  You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
  the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
  context, as if the posters and their words
  represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
  *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
  posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
  and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
  that many of the posters were responding to.
  
  The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
  of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
  beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
  the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
  supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
  No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
  the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
  
  The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
  the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
  attention.
 
 No comment. 
 
 Quotes of yours from the next issue, when/if I ever 
 feel like posting it. No comment on them, either:
 
 He's [TM critic, the compiler of this list of quotes]
 never been able to handle challenges to his opinions; 
 his freakouts typically occur when he's been getting 
 more opposition than usual. This time I think there's 
 just been too much of it for him to deal with. Whether 
 alcohol is exacerbating things, who knows?
 
 I think he [the compiler of this list, on which her 
 quotes appear consistently, and about which quotes he 
 has made absolutely no comment] may be having a breakdown. 
 He's always had periodic freakouts, but I've never seen 
 him in such a manic, irrational tizzy.
 
 Same person: Wanted to add that I'm pretty sure B 
 doesn't behave like this [that is, quoting *her* words
 and those of others like her] in his everyday life. 
 Internet forums are an outlet so that he *doesn't* 
 behave like a monster otherwise.
 
 Same person, after writing dozens of lines 'analyzing'
 the person who had done nothing more than quote her, 
 and other TMers like her, and who didn't respond to her 
 'analysis' except to collect more of her quotes: I'm 
 sure he'll 'intuit' some conclusions about me right back. 
 Y'all can decide which of us has the clearer mind...
 
 Responding to the person who suggested that this series
 of quotes be archived, two different long-term TMers: 
 -- You just outed yourself, R. 
 -- Just what I was thinking. Moral vacuum time.
 
 Responding to a person who had said: No one has any higher 
 moral ground here. -- Only someone who, like R [founder 
 of the TM-related forum on which criticism of TM is allowed],
 is living in a moral vacuum could say such a thing. P.S. Sod 
 off.
 
 B, all of us--including yourself--understand what you're 
 attempting here: you're trying to shut your critics up and 
 suppress the pro-TM viewpoint--the views of the people you 
 have declared to be 'interlopers' on this forum. R approves 
 of this tactic. That speaks for itself.
 
 Same person, a few minutes later: Geez, I certainly don't 
 think it will shut anyone up, least of all me! I'm pointing 
 out  that this is what *B* is hoping his quote-posting will 
 accomplish.
 
 B. Heads up, dood. What you're doing is *transparent*. You 
 aren't fooling anybody. All your 'encouragement' for us to 
 keep posting is part of the scheme. *Of course* you're going 
 to deny you're trying to silence us. 
 
 After having made over a dozen posts on three different 
 Internet forums complaining about her words being supposedly 
 being quoted out of context here: But I'm not 'upset' about 
 it, to the contrary. B hasn't identified the posters, and if 
 anyone did a search on the words in the quotes to find out
 who wrote them, they'd also see the context. The point is 
 that it's one of B's typically dishonest tactics. I mention 
 it because it reflects so badly on *him*.
 
 Same person, a few minutes later, still not upset: P.S.: 
 He's even gone so far with some of the quotes as to provide 
 what he *claims* to be context, except that it deliberately 
 misrepresents the actual context. Most people are smart 
 enough not to take seriously isolated quotes collected by 
 someone who obviously has an axe to grind, even if they 
 don't know how dishonest B is. And B's smart enough to know 
 this too. It's just that he's not smart enough to realize 
 his grandstanding here gives the game away and makes it 
 clear that the exercise 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-
 
 That's a new one.  Is this like when a chick points to her eyes and
 says, My eyes are up here buster?

Haven't you read Barry's recent posts about evaluating
the level of one's state of attention?  Better hop to it.



 
  The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
  the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
  attention.
 
 Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness?  Or is it
 more like slouching?
 
 Or should I just sod off now?
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip
   I would think the more relevant question to the
   technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
   think of seeing your words alongside the others in
   that post, and presented as if you and your words
   represented TM and Maharishi?
  
  You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
  the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
  context, as if the posters and their words
  represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
  *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
  posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
  and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
  that many of the posters were responding to.
  
  The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
  of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
  beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
  the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
  supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
  No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
  the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
  
  The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
  the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
  attention.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
 The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than
 Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism.
 Clinton was obsessed with the threat.  Bush ignored
 it.

Thank you for pointing out Bill Clinton's obsession with Al Qaeda's
connections to Iraq. Clinton ordered the bombing of a soap factory and
killed a camel inside a barn, but he failed to kill Osama bin Laden
when he had the chance. But in a previous post didn't you made the
claim that there were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraq
regime and that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Go figure.

The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin
Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to
Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant
to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.

ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the
Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned
the American public about those ties and defended its response to al
Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

Read more:

'The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties'
by Stephen F. Hayes 
Weekly Standard, December 29,k 2003
http://tinyurl.com/3fjp2

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Now I see you were riffing off of Turq use of the term.
   Should have read them in sequence.
  
  But it's funny (at least to me) that you intuited
  Sod off, because that was in the list of her
  quotes that I replied with.
 
 Which quote was, of course, addressed to Curtis to
 start with, so he wasn't intuiting anything, just
 recalling.


I'm pretty sure it was from my high state of attention.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Now I see you were riffing off of Turq use of the term.
  Should have read them in sequence.
 
 But it's funny (at least to me) that you intuited
 Sod off, because that was in the list of her
 quotes that I replied with.

Which quote was, of course, addressed to Curtis to
start with, so he wasn't intuiting anything, just
recalling.

[FairfieldLife] Quote

[Rick Archer]

Cardemeister or someone. What is the actual quote that goes something like
Curving back onto myself, I create again and again. Who said it? What
scripture is it in? A friend needs it for something she is writing.

 



Rick Archer
SearchSummit
1108 South B Street
Fairfield, IA 52556
Phone: (641) 472-9336
Fax: (914) 470-9336
http: http://searchsummit.com //searchsummit.com
 http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thanks for confirming just about everything
 I've said, Barry, including in your compiled
 quotes. Open-and-shut case.

I think so. In every quote, you were commenting on ME
(or Rick, or some other of your enemies here), not 
on any of the issues I/we raised. You rarely even
*bother* to address any of the actual points I raise
any more; you just use them as a springboard to attack
ME again.

In the case of the blurb I wrote about the discrimination
technique I described today, you seem to not even *diagree*
with it. What you did was use it as an excuse to attack
my character and ME again. So did Lawson. ( Llundrub at 
least had the courtesy to disagree with *what* I said, 
*before* having a bash at ME. :-)

Do you honestly feel that this trend -- and it IS a trend;
ask anyone here, including your supporters -- reflects 
well upon all that you've supposedly learned from Maharishi 
and your own TM practice for over thirty years?

If so, I wish you a long and happy life pursuing this
trend, and hope that it takes you where you think it will.
Me, I have my doubts that you'll end up where -- and as
what -- you're expecting.


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   snip
I would think the more relevant question to the
technique I've been talking about is what did YOU
think of seeing your words alongside the others in
that post, and presented as if you and your words
represented TM and Maharishi?
   
   You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought
   the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their
   context, as if the posters and their words
   represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very,
   *very* low state of attention--far lower than the
   posters themselves when they wrote what he posted,
   and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks
   that many of the posters were responding to.
   
   The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state-
   of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest-
   beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed
   the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM
   supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up.
   No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of
   the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel.
   
   The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed
   the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of
   attention.
  
  No comment. 
  
  Quotes of yours from the next issue, when/if I ever 
  feel like posting it. No comment on them, either:
  
  He's [TM critic, the compiler of this list of quotes]
  never been able to handle challenges to his opinions; 
  his freakouts typically occur when he's been getting 
  more opposition than usual. This time I think there's 
  just been too much of it for him to deal with. Whether 
  alcohol is exacerbating things, who knows?
  
  I think he [the compiler of this list, on which her 
  quotes appear consistently, and about which quotes he 
  has made absolutely no comment] may be having a breakdown. 
  He's always had periodic freakouts, but I've never seen 
  him in such a manic, irrational tizzy.
  
  Same person: Wanted to add that I'm pretty sure B 
  doesn't behave like this [that is, quoting *her* words
  and those of others like her] in his everyday life. 
  Internet forums are an outlet so that he *doesn't* 
  behave like a monster otherwise.
  
  Same person, after writing dozens of lines 'analyzing'
  the person who had done nothing more than quote her, 
  and other TMers like her, and who didn't respond to her 
  'analysis' except to collect more of her quotes: I'm 
  sure he'll 'intuit' some conclusions about me right back. 
  Y'all can decide which of us has the clearer mind...
  
  Responding to the person who suggested that this series
  of quotes be archived, two different long-term TMers: 
  -- You just outed yourself, R. 
  -- Just what I was thinking. Moral vacuum time.
  
  Responding to a person who had said: No one has any higher 
  moral ground here. -- Only someone who, like R [founder 
  of the TM-related forum on which criticism of TM is allowed],
  is living in a moral vacuum could say such a thing. P.S. Sod 
  off.
  
  B, all of us--including yourself--understand what you're 
  attempting here: you're trying to shut your critics up and 
  suppress the pro-TM viewpoint--the views of the people you 
  have declared to be 'interlopers' on this forum. R approves 
  of this tactic. That speaks for itself.
  
  Same person, a few minutes later: Geez, I certainly don't 
  think it will shut anyone up, least of all me! I'm pointing 
  out  that this is what *B* is hoping his quote-posting will 
  accomplish.
  
  B. Heads up, dood. What you're doing is *transparent*. You 
  aren't fooling anybody. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
Now I see you were riffing off of Turq use of the term.
Should have read them in sequence.
   
   But it's funny (at least to me) that you intuited
   Sod off, because that was in the list of her
   quotes that I replied with.
  
  Which quote was, of course, addressed to Curtis to
  start with, so he wasn't intuiting anything, just
  recalling.
 
 I'm pretty sure it was from my high state of attention.

Which probably has a lot to do with picking the
girl in the pink dress to help you with your act. :-)

Really.

That one moment probably did more for your state
of attention than all the meditating Judy has done
for the last year, judging solely from the ways
that each of you treat people.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

So you figured it out now after looking it up twice, that's good. 

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:14 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
enlightenment go together?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Patronymics - naming a child - like naming some bastard 
 new age technique Buddhist. 


Main Entry:
pat.ro.nym.ic 
Function:
noun 
Etymology:
ultimately from Greek patronymia patronymic, from 
patr- + onyma name - more at name
Date:
1612

: a name derived from that of the father or a paternal 
ancestor usually by the addition of an affix.


...as in, Ivan Ivanovich Smegma. Ivan son
of Ivan, last name Smegma. Ivanovich is the
patronymic.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So you figured it out now after looking it up twice, that's good. 

It's official. Llundrub has become Judy. :-)


 -Original Message-
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:14 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining
 enlightenment go together?
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub llundrub@ wrote:
 
  Patronymics - naming a child - like naming some bastard 
  new age technique Buddhist. 
 
 
 Main Entry:
 pat.ro.nym.ic 
 Function:
 noun 
 Etymology:
 ultimately from Greek patronymia patronymic, from 
 patr- + onyma name - more at name
 Date:
 1612
 
 : a name derived from that of the father or a paternal 
 ancestor usually by the addition of an affix.
 
 
 ...as in, Ivan Ivanovich Smegma. Ivan son
 of Ivan, last name Smegma. Ivanovich is the
 patronymic.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Jesus and the Terminator

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Va7MXZhco

Hilarious!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:00 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
  It occurs to me that one reason they might actually
  jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be
  to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding
  scandals,
 
 Whatever the reason, it would be great to see him go.
 
   in particular the U.S. attorney firings,
  which is currently in the process of going nuclear.
 
 Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make
 any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw.

This one's getting a lot more attention in the
mainstream media than I would have thought.  It's
pretty inside-baseball; what's scandalous about it
isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as in the Walter
Reed scandal or the Libby scandal or the FBI
scandal.  I think if I were your average minimally
informed citizen, I'd be having trouble figuring
out what the big deal is, especially the fact that
even leading *Republicans* are calling for Gonzales's
head.

It remains to be seen whether the media can make
a convincing case to the public. Most people won't
be surprised to hear the administration has been
caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, but
this may not have quite the visceral impact as some
of the other smoking guns (block that metaphor!).

So given that the media is leading the charge--as
opposed to reflecting massive citizen outrage--a
Cheney resignation that forced the media to focus
on something much more concrete might just work.

It wouldn't stop the congressional investigations,
but it could provide cover for the administration to
stonewall with regard to subpoenas and providing
information, and just generally relegate the whole
thing to the back burner.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Quote

[llundrub]

prakR^iti.n svaamavashhTabhya visR^ijaami punaH punaH .
bhuutagraamamimaM kR^its{}namavashaM prakR^itervashaat.h ..  Gita - 9\.8..


Using My Prakriti I create, again and again, the entire multitude of beings
that are helpless, being under the control of (the Gunas of) Prakriti.

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick Archer
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:27 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Quote

 

Cardemeister or someone. What is the actual quote that goes something like
Curving back onto myself, I create again and again. Who said it? What
scripture is it in? A friend needs it for something she is writing.

 



Rick Archer
SearchSummit
1108 South B Street
Fairfield, IA 52556
Phone: (641) 472-9336
Fax: (914) 470-9336
http://searchsummit.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[llundrub]

You're definitely the thorn with the rose Turq, but you're okay I guess. At
least you're trying to have a conversation. Sorry I'm not very patient and I
have too much work to do to try to be. Have a good day regardless. Me, I'm
dead either way.

-Original Message-
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:35 AM
To

In the case of the blurb I wrote about the discrimination
technique I described today, you seem to not even *diagree*
with it. What you did was use it as an excuse to attack
my character and ME again. So did Lawson. ( Llundrub at 
least had the courtesy to disagree with *what* I said, 
*before* having a bash at ME. :-)

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Quote

[Vaj]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Vaj wrote:



On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

Cardemeister or someone. What is the actual quote that goes  
something like Curving back onto myself, I create again and  
again. Who said it? What scripture is it in? A friend needs it  
for something she is writing.



It's from the Bhagavad-gita, in Mahesh's rendering of 9:8:

Curving back on my own nature I create again and again

prakritam svAm avastabhya visrjAmi punah punah


Incidentally, that only a *fragment* of the entire verse. The entire  
verse he renders:


Curving back on my own nature I create again and again all this  
multitude of beings helpless under the regime of nature.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
salsunshine@ 
  wrote:
  snip
   Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be
   history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, 
supposedly? 
   Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine 
will 
   replace him?
  
  I think it would be terrific.
  
  I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you
  never know.
 
 It occurs to me that one reason they might actually
 jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be
 to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding
 scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings,
 which is currently in the process of going nuclear.
 So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved
 in that one.
 
So far just a bunch of blabbing by the Democrats, as Bush gets 
stronger. Just yesterday the Dems decided to remove any 
Congressional authorization for Bush to attack Iran. Bush, his 
adminstration, and his wars are increasingly unpopular, but he is 
getting more powerful, not less.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Thanks for confirming just about everything
  I've said, Barry, including in your compiled
  quotes. Open-and-shut case.
 
 I think so. In every quote, you were commenting on ME
 (or Rick, or some other of your enemies here), not 
 on any of the issues I/we raised.

Er, Barry, I wasn't the one who selected the quotes.

 You rarely even
 *bother* to address any of the actual points I raise
 any more; you just use them as a springboard to attack
 ME again.
 
 In the case of the blurb I wrote about the discrimination
 technique I described today, you seem to not even *diagree*
 with it. What you did was use it as an excuse to attack
 my character and ME again.

Look again.  The posts in which I criticize your
character are the ones you *notice*.  You don't
even bother to read the others.

 So did Lawson. ( Llundrub at 
 least had the courtesy to disagree with *what* I said, 
 *before* having a bash at ME. :-)

So did I.

 Do you honestly feel that this trend -- and it IS a trend;
 ask anyone here, including your supporters -- reflects 
 well upon all that you've supposedly learned from Maharishi 
 and your own TM practice for over thirty years?

What I say and do reflects *me*, not anybody or
anything else.  Most of all, they reflect my
disgust with hypocrisy and dishonesty.  It's no
wonder you're desperate to silence me.

And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
or MMY.


 
 If so, I wish you a long and happy life pursuing this
 trend, and hope that it takes you where you think it will.
 Me, I have my doubts that you'll end up where -- and as
 what -- you're expecting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Central University: from announcement to web site

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  drpetersutphen@ wrote:
  
   
   --- sparaig sparaig@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
drpetersutphen@ wrote:

 
 --- llundrub llundrub@ wrote:
 
  Sri Sri can do this.
 
 And I'm sure MMY could too if that was his
  true
 intent. In fact he already has with MIU. But
  MIU
was
 founded by people who actually knew how to
  start a
 university and actually wanted to start a
university.
 This thing in Can's Ass has another
  purpose. 

Keith Wallace and Nat Goldhabber knew how to
  start a
university??
   
   Well, they did! And it was pretty good for awhile.
  
  Sigh. Wallace and Goldhabber were in their early/mid
  20s at that point, and it was luck (or 
  support of nature) as much as anything that got MIU
  going and kept it going in the early 
  days.
  
  John is  twice as old as they were, has led a
  political party for 12 years, had a political 
  battle that landed him briefly on Larry King, and
  has been dealing with life, the universe, 
  and so on in the real world  for longer than those
  two had been alive at that point.
  
  There's no question as to who knows more about
  setting up new organization: the young 
  Wallace  Goldhabber, or the current Hagelin.
  
  Mind you, I'm not expecting to win that $149,000,000
  from Jim.
 
 I think John is more than capable of starting a
 university. No problem there. The difficulty is the
 constraints placed upon him and this university by
 MMY. John can bring all the waking state expertise he
 has to bear upon this project, but if the foundation
 is waking state insane, it won't happen. You build on
 strength, not empty fields in Can's ass.
 
Nonetheless it is a fascinating free show watching the interaction 
between the boundaries of the common man and the existence of the 
unfiltered, uncategorized and unleashed Being. Beats cable!

RE: [FairfieldLife] Quote

[Rick Archer]

Thanks guys.

 



Rick Archer
SearchSummit
1108 South B Street
Fairfield, IA 52556
Phone: (641) 472-9336
Fax: (914) 470-9336
http://searchsummit.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of llundrub
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:48 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Quote

 

prakR^iti.n svaamavashhTabhya visR^ijaami punaH punaH .
bhuutagraamamimaM kR^its{}namavashaM prakR^itervashaat.h ..  Gita - 9\.8..


Using My Prakriti I create, again and again, the entire multitude of beings
that are helpless, being under the control of (the Gunas of) Prakriti.

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick Archer
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:27 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Quote

 

Cardemeister or someone. What is the actual quote that goes something like
Curving back onto myself, I create again and again. Who said it? What
scripture is it in? A friend needs it for something she is writing.

 



Rick Archer
SearchSummit
1108 South B Street
Fairfield, IA 52556
Phone: (641) 472-9336
Fax: (914) 470-9336
http://searchsummit.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 3/12/07 10:03:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

President Bush continues to ignore the government body of America which  is 
the people's vote. The people have spoken and want him to pull out and he  
continues down the path of war


Did you see the latest poll concerning the war in Iraq? The majority do not  
want us  to just up and leave but want an American victory before we leave.  
Last year at this time many Democrat leaders were criticizing the 
administration  for Not having enough troops on the ground and saying more 
troops either 
needed  to be there or get out altogether. The American people agreed. But 
after 
the  election when Bush agreed to increase troops the Democrats suddenly 
disagreed  and said more troops were not what was needed but time tables  for  
withdrawal to be strictly adhered to. So until you can show me some polls that  
say the American people want us to leave unconditionally, I'll have to say Bush 
 is following the will of the people, not the Democrat lead Congress. By the 
way,  if the Democrats thought they had that kind of support, they would cut 
funding  for the war immediately instead of trying tricks and gimmicks to tie 
the hands  of the administration.
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

sparaig wrote:
 Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored 
 terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance 
 were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a
 network of independents could be a threat because Condi 
 couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. 
 She did her PhD work on Soviet issues.

What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda?

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi
government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors,
a government that respects the rights of its people. - Bill Clinton

Read more:

'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance'
CNN, December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 3/12/07 9:20:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

She'd be  black AND female, vs the two top Democratic contenders who are 
black OR  
female. She'd be arch-conservative but... she'd be black and  female.

Yikes, what an interesting mess.



And you know, the South would vote for Condi in a heart beat to shake the  
racist image of the past.
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[Lsoma]

 
In a message dated 3/13/2007 8:06:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 
YES-I know, the numbers in Iowa
 are for 
  America  only-then why is John talking about the relationship of
 America to  
  Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lebanon got half
  blown  up last summer. 

You didn't get the point Lou. The relationship between  the USA and 
other nations are somewhat warming up. And that is a great  improvement 
from the American side versus how relationships have been the  last 
years. Doesn't mean the terrorism created by the Americans will stop,  
or that justice suddenly will prevail, or that the Palestinians all of  
a sudden will have their homeland back, but it is definitely an  
improvement. And who knows; it could very well be an effect of the  
Maharishi Effect.


 


 Your not getting my point at all. According to the ME we need a  certain 
amount of people for America.
I think it was around 1,743 or so. For the world we need 7,000. Remember  
1981 assembly. I am very happy
that the world appears to be getting better and that people are getting  
along. I don't think the mother and child that are starving in North Korea feel 
 
the same way as you do or the child who is frightened to go to school in fear 
of  getting killed on the way home in Iraq or the child who is kidnapped in 
Mexico  for ransom or sold for sex in Thailand. Sorry my picture appears to be 
so 
 negative to those who want flowery predictions. An d since George Bush could 
 give a shit about what Americans want in regards to Iraq and Katrina victims 
I  don't
see the situation in Iraq or Iran headed in the right direction. But, if  you 
want to put those rose colored glasses on and listen to John Haglin or  
whoever inflate their ego's because they want to become the greatest scientist  
in 
the world to accumulate more money and power to take over the world with the  
Holy Tradition then keep on keep it on. Your doing a wonderful job of kissing  
the ass of people who don't give a shit about you or the world. They just 
want  more and more and more and more. They can't even change the weather in
Fairfield Iowa and now they want to proclaim saving the world. And when MMY  
dies in July or August of this
year things will become more conservative in fear that someone will try to  
manipulate the purity of the teaching. The teaching they feel needs protecting  
doesn't need them at all. It is self sufficient unto inSelf. The more they 
try  to hold on tightly the more the purity slips threw there fingers. The more 
they  hold on to the structures they have built around themselves the more 
they turn  people away. The very people like myself who could be a great asset 
in 
changing  the world by contributing to the ME. The ME is valid but we need at 
least 10,000  people in Iowa to have a profound effect. For now, they will 
bring the pundits  from India
to do Yagyas to try to dissipate all of the sins that the TMO has  
accumulated over the years. God knows if they would just relax with their path  
and stop 
trying to be so perfect all the time they would have had enough people  from 
America and wouldn't need the Pundits in the first place. So much for the  
intelligence of John 
Haglin or Tony Nader. There brilliant minds are put to waste by hiding  
behind the high cost associated with their work. I think the Tony Nader book is 
 
$250.00. Come on Tony, ( His Majesty Maharaga Nader Raam)  Lebanon is half  
blown up. Let's get the knowledge out their for the average person who wants to 
 
know about your wonderful story. Love and Light  Lsoma.
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Peter Pearce - writer profile from the WritersNet published writers and authors directory

[Rick Archer]

http://www.writers.net/writers/19421 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
 This one's getting a lot more attention in the
 mainstream media than I would have thought.
  
So where is the scandal - is the firing of Iglesias scandalous? 

Powerline: Is the firing of Iglesias a genuine scandal? As  David
Frum notes, it depends on the facts: was there a serious problem of
voter fraud in the state, was Iglesias sluggish in dealing with it,
and did the administration act even-handedly by insisting that its
U.S. Attorneys adequately deal with serious allegations of voter fraud
lodged by both political parties?

Read more:

'About those fired U.S. Attorneys'
Posted by John Hindraker:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017018.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 3/12/07 9:20:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 She'd be  black AND female, vs the two top Democratic contenders 
who are 
 black OR  
 female. She'd be arch-conservative but... she'd be black and  
female.
 
 Yikes, what an interesting mess.
 
 
 
 And you know, the South would vote for Condi in a heart beat to 
shake the  
 racist image of the past.

Gee, just what we need, another Bush, only with *less* experience.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 sparaig wrote:
  Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored 
  terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance 
  were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a
  network of independents could be a threat because Condi 
  couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. 
  She did her PhD work on Soviet issues.
 
 What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda?
 
 The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new 
Iraqi
 government -- a government ready to live in peace with its 
neighbors,
 a government that respects the rights of its people. - Bill 
Clinton
 
 Read more:
 
 'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance'
 CNN, December 16, 1998
 http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

You can't just make stuff up to prove your point. If you read the 
article you quote, Clinton doesn't mention Al Qaeda at all. 

What's this obsession with Clinton anyway? I don't recall a similar 
thing going on after Reagan f*cked up the country and Clinton came 
in. You know why? Clinton was competent, and didn't rely on a bunch 
of goons in the press to slander his predecessor. Bush on the other 
hand is grossly incompetent. Talk about a mental midget. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 3/13/2007 8:06:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  
  
  
 YES-I know, the numbers in Iowa
  are for 
   America  only-then why is John talking about the relationship 
of
  America to  
   Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lebanon got half
   blown  up last summer. 
 
 You didn't get the point Lou. The relationship between  the USA 
and 
 other nations are somewhat warming up. And that is a great  
improvement 
 from the American side versus how relationships have been the  
last 
 years. Doesn't mean the terrorism created by the Americans will 
stop,  
 or that justice suddenly will prevail, or that the Palestinians 
all of  
 a sudden will have their homeland back, but it is definitely an  
 improvement. And who knows; it could very well be an effect of 
the  
 Maharishi Effect.
 
 
  
 
 
  Your not getting my point at all. 

Try continuing to walk the razor's edge for awhile, without being so 
quick to pitch over one side or the other. Things will 
unconditionally improve, globally. It is just taking some time. On 
the edge, one foot in front of the other.

Re: [FairfieldLife] JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[Lsoma]

 
In a message dated 3/13/2007 11:15:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/12/07 10:03:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

President Bush continues to ignore the government body of America  which is 
the people's vote. The people have spoken and want him to pull out  and he 
continues down the path of war


Did you see the latest poll concerning the war in Iraq? The majority do  not 
want us  to just up and leave but want an American victory before we  leave. 
Last year at this time many Democrat leaders were criticizing the  
administration for Not having enough troops on the ground and saying more  
troops either 
needed to be there or get out altogether. The American people  agreed. But 
after the election when Bush agreed to increase troops the  Democrats suddenly 
disagreed and said more troops were not what was needed but  time tables  for 
withdrawal to be strictly adhered to. So until you can  show me some polls that 
say the American people want us to leave  unconditionally, I'll have to say 
Bush is following the will of the people,  not the Democrat lead Congress. By 
the 
way, if the Democrats thought they had  that kind of support, they would cut 
funding for the war immediately instead  of trying tricks and gimmicks to tie 
the hands of the  administration.



 

 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from  
AOL at _AOL.com_ (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000339) . 

 


 The majority of both the house and Senate is Democrates. That is  enough 
proof regarding the feelings of msot Americans. President Bush is a  complete 
self-centered leader. We have too many enemies worldwide. The leader of  Russia 
has recently expressed his opinion of Bush and also the United Nations  last 
year with an applause from the audience when Chevez spoke. Bush has no  
interest in America. He is too busy trying to police the world with vise  
president 
Cheney. I predict that there will be a major attack on our army  sometime 
between June 1st and September 30th of this year which will set up the  
impeachment 
process for Bush. We will lose at least 1/4 of the troops that are  over 
there. If the president and Cheney are assassinated then Nancy Polosi would  be 
the president of the United States of America. Anything can happen between  
June 
1st to November 1st of 2007. Lsoma. 
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You're definitely the thorn with the rose Turq, but you're 
 okay I guess. At least you're trying to have a conversation. 
 Sorry I'm not very patient and I have too much work to do 
 to try to be. Have a good day regardless. Me, I'm dead 
 either way.

I'm not convinced that I was ever alive. :-)

You have a good day, too, man. I really wasn't trying
to offend you, or anyone else here. I just passed along
something I'd learned -- a third way of seeing things
among many, in response to two other ways of seeing that
had been posted -- trying to phrase it in the *least* 
threatening way I knew how. Sorry if it, or I, pushed 
your buttons.


 -Original Message-
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:35 AM
 To
 
 In the case of the blurb I wrote about the discrimination
 technique I described today, you seem to not even *diagree*
 with it. What you did was use it as an excuse to attack
 my character and ME again. So did Lawson. ( Llundrub at 
 least had the courtesy to disagree with *what* I said, 
 *before* having a bash at ME. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[Lsoma]

 
In a message dated 3/13/2007 11:36:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 
 
 
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
,  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 In a message dated 3/13/2007 8:06:45  A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])   writes:
 
 
 
 
 YES-I know, the numbers in  Iowa
  are for 
   America only-then why is John  talking about the relationship 
of
  America to 
Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lebanon got half
   blown up  last summer. 
 
 You didn't get the point Lou. The relationship  between the USA 
and 
 other nations are somewhat warming up. And  that is a great 
improvement 
 from the American side versus how  relationships have been the 
last 
 years. Doesn't mean the  terrorism created by the Americans will 
stop, 
 or that justice  suddenly will prevail, or that the Palestinians 
all of 
 a sudden  will have their homeland back, but it is definitely an 
 improvement.  And who knows; it could very well be an effect of 
the 
 Maharishi  Effect.
 
 
 
 
 
  Your not  getting my point at all. 

Try continuing to walk the razor's edge for  awhile, without being so 
quick to pitch over one side or the other. Things  will 
unconditionally improve, globally. It is just taking some time. On  
the edge, one foot in front of the other.


 


I'm not trying to walk on one side or the other. I'd rather be  
participating in Invincible America. Stop kissing up to the TMO. Your living in 
 a dream 
that is about to end by the end of this summer.  Lsoma.
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
 willytex@ wrote:
 
  sparaig wrote:
   Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored 
   terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance 
   were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a
   network of independents could be a threat because Condi 
   couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. 
   She did her PhD work on Soviet issues.
  
  What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda?
  
  The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new 
 Iraqi
  government -- a government ready to live in peace with its 
 neighbors,
  a government that respects the rights of its people. - Bill 
 Clinton
  
  Read more:
  
  'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance'
  CNN, December 16, 1998
  http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
 
 You can't just make stuff up to prove your point.

Sure he can.  He does it all the time.  That's what
trolls *do*.



 If you read the 
 article you quote, Clinton doesn't mention Al Qaeda at all. 
 
 What's this obsession with Clinton anyway? I don't recall a similar 
 thing going on after Reagan f*cked up the country and Clinton came 
 in. You know why? Clinton was competent, and didn't rely on a bunch 
 of goons in the press to slander his predecessor. Bush on the other 
 hand is grossly incompetent. Talk about a mental midget.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 3/13/07 8:18:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yep, yet  another major scandal that probably won't make any difference. 
Then  again, this could be the final straw.



Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? Were they  union?
BRBRBR**BR AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
 you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
 of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
 or MMY.

What I believe I said is that my attacks, when I make 
them, are against *individual* TMers. People I consider
sad, such as yourself, Peter Klutz, Nablus, and occas-
ional others as their comments here merit. It's YOU who 
is trying to portray that as attacks on TMers as a group. 

And I doubt that I ever said that most of my posts 
were of this nature. But I might have. I suggest that you 
go back and reread everything I've ever written here 
on FFL -- carefully -- and find the quote in which you 
think I said it. And then you can post it here. Think
how gleeful you'll be if you can find it. On the other
hand, think of how silly you'll feel when you can't.  

We're expecting a book report from you either way. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 3/13/07 8:18:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 Yep, yet  another major scandal that probably won't make any 
difference. 
 Then  again, this could be the final straw.
 
 Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? Were they  union?

Did you have a sensible comment or question?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

MDixon wrote:
 Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? 

They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton
fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the
mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire
the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas.

 Were they  union?

No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out
of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for
replacement.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
  you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
  of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
  or MMY.
 
 What I believe I said is that my attacks, when I make 
 them, are against *individual* TMers. People I consider
 sad, such as yourself, Peter Klutz, Nablus, and occas-
 ional others as their comments here merit. It's YOU who 
 is trying to portray that as attacks on TMers as a group. 
 
 And I doubt that I ever said that most of my posts 
 were of this nature. But I might have. I suggest that you 
 go back and reread everything I've ever written here 
 on FFL -- carefully -- and find the quote in which you 
 think I said it. And then you can post it here. Think
 how gleeful you'll be if you can find it. On the other
 hand, think of how silly you'll feel when you can't.  
 
 We're expecting a book report from you either way. :-)

Just to show you that I am at least FAIR when
I assign you one of my make work projects,
Judy, is the quote in which you claim that I
said that most of your [my] posts are attacks 
on TMers, not on the TMO or MMY the one below, 
from FFL post #133926? I repost here what I 
said in that post. I suggest you compare it to 
your memory of the post that you wrote above:


Perhaps you could do us all a favor and compile
a list of the posts I have made since the start
of this calendar year that bash TM, the TMO, or
Maharishi. I'm curious myself (and besides, I love
to assign you make work projects), because as
far as I can tell, I have primarily been bashing
*individuals* such as yourself and the other people
whose words I have been collecting in the THINGS
TMers BELIEVE series.

YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. Put
up or shut up.

Besides, then you'll have to re-read everything
I've written since January 1st of this year, won't
you? And you just *know* how you'll love doing that.

:-) :-) :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
 Did you have a sensible comment or question?

Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton fired all
U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the scandal from firing only
eight by Bush?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
  you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
  of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
  or MMY.
 
 What I believe I said is that my attacks, when I make 
 them, are against *individual* TMers. People I consider
 sad, such as yourself, Peter Klutz, Nablus, and occas-
 ional others as their comments here merit. It's YOU who 
 is trying to portray that as attacks on TMers as a group.

You do both, actually.  But, of course, I've never
said you do one *rather than* the other; you made
that up, as usual.  Nor do I even use the phrase
TMers as a group--you made that up as well and
disingenuously put it in quotes as if those were
my words.

I do frequently refer to TMers on this forum as
the targets of your chronic bashing compulsion.  Or I
don't specify either way, since, as noted, you bash
both individual TMers *and* TMers as a group.  In
this case I was referring to your bashing individuals
on this forum.

 And I doubt that I ever said that most of my posts 
 were of this nature. But I might have.

Perhaps you could do us all a favor and compile
a list of the posts I have made since the start
of this calendar year that bash TM, the TMO, or
Maharishi. I'm curious myself (and besides, I love
to assign you 'make work' projects), because as
far as I can tell, I have primarily been bashing
*individuals* such as yourself and the other people
whose words I have been collecting in the THINGS
TMers BELIEVE series (March 6).

 I suggest that you 
 go back and reread everything I've ever written here 
 on FFL -- carefully -- and find the quote in which you 
 think I said it. And then you can post it here.

Just did.  But all I had to do was search for the
word January, which appeared later in that post:

YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. Put
up or shut up.

Besides, then you'll have to re-read everything
I've written since January 1st of this year, won't
you? And you just *know* how you'll love doing that.

As noted, I didn't have to reread anything.

And, as noted, I've never said that was all you
do.

Bottom line: Another post full of lies from Barry,
in an attempt to change the subject and avoid
addressing his own hypocrisy.

Thanks again, Barry, for confirming what I've been
saying.




 Think
 how gleeful you'll be if you can find it. On the other
 hand, think of how silly you'll feel when you can't.  
 
 We're expecting a book report from you either way. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
 Put up or shut up.
 
 :-) :-) :-)

Having a little trouble communicating with Judy? :-) :-) :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 MDixon wrote:
  Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? 
 
 They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton
 fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the
 mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire
 the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas.

As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly
elected president to ask for the resignations of
political appointees, including U.S. attorneys,
especially if they were appointed by the other party.

What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys
a president has appointed before the president's term
is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause.

In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that
the cause in question was these attorneys'
unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by
the White House and Justice Department for political
purposes.  The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department--
are supposed to be independent of political influence.

The even more important question here is, how many
of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their
jobs because they *did* submit to political influence?



  Were they  union?
 
 No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out
 of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for
 replacement.

[FairfieldLife] Re: JOHN HAGLINS MESSAGE REGARDING AMERICA INVINCIBILITY

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
 In a message dated 3/13/2007 11:36:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  
  
  
 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
 ,  Lsoma@ wrote:
 
  
  In a message dated 3/13/2007 8:06:45  A.M. Eastern Daylight 
Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])   
writes:
  
  
  
  
  YES-I know, the numbers in  Iowa
   are for 
America only-then why is John  talking about the 
relationship 
 of
   America to 
 Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lebanon got half
blown up  last summer. 
  
  You didn't get the point Lou. The relationship  between the USA 
 and 
  other nations are somewhat warming up. And  that is a great 
 improvement 
  from the American side versus how  relationships have been the 
 last 
  years. Doesn't mean the  terrorism created by the Americans will 
 stop, 
  or that justice  suddenly will prevail, or that the Palestinians 
 all of 
  a sudden  will have their homeland back, but it is definitely an 
  improvement.  And who knows; it could very well be an effect of 
 the 
  Maharishi  Effect.
  
  
  
  
  
   Your not  getting my point at all. 
 
 Try continuing to walk the razor's edge for  awhile, without being 
so 
 quick to pitch over one side or the other. Things  will 
 unconditionally improve, globally. It is just taking some time. 
On  
 the edge, one foot in front of the other.
 
 
  
 
 
 I'm not trying to walk on one side or the other. I'd rather be  
 participating in Invincible America. Stop kissing up to the TMO. 
Your living in  a dream 
 that is about to end by the end of this summer.  Lsoma.

And then what? The *next* dream begins? What does your next dream 
look like?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
  
   And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
   you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
   of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
   or MMY.
  
  What I believe I said is that my attacks, when I make 
  them, are against *individual* TMers. People I consider
  sad, such as yourself, Peter Klutz, Nablus, and occas-
  ional others as their comments here merit. It's YOU who 
  is trying to portray that as attacks on TMers as a group. 
  
  And I doubt that I ever said that most of my posts 
  were of this nature. But I might have. I suggest that you 
  go back and reread everything I've ever written here 
  on FFL -- carefully -- and find the quote in which you 
  think I said it. And then you can post it here. Think
  how gleeful you'll be if you can find it. On the other
  hand, think of how silly you'll feel when you can't.  
  
  We're expecting a book report from you either way. :-)
 
 Just to show you that I am at least FAIR when
 I assign you one of my make work projects,
 Judy, is the quote in which you claim that I
 said that most of your [my] posts are attacks 
 on TMers, not on the TMO or MMY the one below, 
 from FFL post #133926? I repost here what I 
 said in that post. I suggest you compare it to 
 your memory of the post that you wrote above:

Says Barry, remembering all of a sudden to his
horror that yes, he *did* make such a post, knowing
how easy it will be for me to find it, wanting to get
out with his admission up front before I reproduce
the post, and hoping against hope that because he
said since the beginning of the year, it will
somehow be perceived to have disproved what I said.

 Perhaps you could do us all a favor and compile
 a list of the posts I have made since the start
 of this calendar year that bash TM, the TMO, or
 Maharishi. I'm curious myself (and besides, I love
 to assign you make work projects), because as
 far as I can tell, I have primarily been bashing
 *individuals* such as yourself and the other people
 whose words I have been collecting in the THINGS
 TMers BELIEVE series.
 
 YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
 I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi.

And note once again that Barry has seen fit to
repeat one of his more blatant lies.

Talk about desperation...



 Put
 up or shut up.
 
 Besides, then you'll have to re-read everything
 I've written since January 1st of this year, won't
 you? And you just *know* how you'll love doing that.
 
 :-) :-) :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interdependence

[jim_flanegin]

Fun stuff about dharma. I also liked the Indras Net stuff about 
space, and the fractals. Thanks for posting it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

   Bhikkhus, this bowl cannot exist independently.  It is here 
thanks to all
 the things we consider non-bowl entities such as earth, water, 
fire, air,
 the potter, and so forth.  It is the same for all dharmas.  Every 
dharma
 exists in interdependent relation to all other dharmas.  All 
dharmas exist
 by the principles of interpenetration and interbeing.

   Bhikkhus, look deeply at this bowl, and you can see the entire 
universe.
 This bowl contains the entire universe.  There is only one thing 
the bowl is
 empty of and that is a separate, individual self.  What is a 
separate,
 individual self?  It is a self which exists completely on its own,
 independent of all other elements.  No dharma can exist 
independently from
 other dharmas.  No dharma posesses a separate, essential self.  
That is the
 meaning of emptiness.  Empty means empty of self.

   Here's some links to stuff on the Jeweled Net of Indra, for those
 interested:

   Scroll down on this page for a short article on it:
  
 http://c1.zedo.com/jsc/c1/ff2.html?
n=162;c=1963/1;s=797;d=16;w=720;h=300;t=A
 dvertisement

   This is a list of all the implications of the Jeweled Net:
   http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html

   a short wikipedia article:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_Net

   These articles talks about the Jeweled Net in relation to the 
internet:
   
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/12/03/stories/1303076i.htm
   http://www.techgnosis.com/indranet.html - the first half of the 
page (the
 writer's snarky, the but guy he interviews is interesting)

   an article on Indra's Net and the law:
   http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/1999/Indras/

   Here's a graphic version:
   http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/indras-net.html

   Indra's Net animations:
   http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/optics/indra.html (I 
found this to
 be a particularly evocative quote from the site:  A completely 
reflective
 sphere in void space is basically invisible in the absence of any 
external
 objects. In other words what the viewer sees on its surface, is 
only what
 gets reflected against it. But on every surface are reflected 
other such
 spheres, for which the same assumption holds (i.e. they are 
invisible). 

   a fractle of it:
  
 
http://www.jackhaas.net/art_Digital_Fractal_art_mandala_Jeweled_Web_o
f_Indra
 _Hindu_art.htm

   The Jeweled Net and the Glass Bead Game:
   http://www.glassbeadgame.com/GBG.htm
 
   Have Fun!
   :) Sean

  SNIPPED BY MODERATOR--PLEASE NOTE
 
 
 
 
   All composed things are like a dream, 
 an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow,
 Like dew or like a lightning flash,
 Meditate on them in this way.
   
 The Diamond Sutra, a Prajnaparamita text
 
 
 
  
 -
 Never miss an email again!
 Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it 
out.
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Yahoo! Groups Links

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
attempt to divert attention from the issue of
his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
to his What TMers Believe posts, including
blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
censorship.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
  
   And speaking of hypocrisy, I might point out that
   you yourself admitted a day or two ago that most
   of your posts are attacks on TMers, not on the TMO
   or MMY.
  
  What I believe I said is that my attacks, when I make 
  them, are against *individual* TMers. People I consider
  sad, such as yourself, Peter Klutz, Nablus, and occas-
  ional others as their comments here merit. It's YOU who 
  is trying to portray that as attacks on TMers as a group. 
  
  And I doubt that I ever said that most of my posts 
  were of this nature. But I might have. I suggest that you 
  go back and reread everything I've ever written here 
  on FFL -- carefully -- and find the quote in which you 
  think I said it. And then you can post it here. Think
  how gleeful you'll be if you can find it. On the other
  hand, think of how silly you'll feel when you can't.  
  
  We're expecting a book report from you either way. :-)
 
 Just to show you that I am at least FAIR when
 I assign you one of my make work projects,
 Judy, is the quote in which you claim that I
 said that most of your [my] posts are attacks 
 on TMers, not on the TMO or MMY the one below, 
 from FFL post #133926? I repost here what I 
 said in that post. I suggest you compare it to 
 your memory of the post that you wrote above:
 
 
 Perhaps you could do us all a favor and compile
 a list of the posts I have made since the start
 of this calendar year that bash TM, the TMO, or
 Maharishi. I'm curious myself (and besides, I love
 to assign you make work projects), because as
 far as I can tell, I have primarily been bashing
 *individuals* such as yourself and the other people
 whose words I have been collecting in the THINGS
 TMers BELIEVE series.
 
 YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
 I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi. Put
 up or shut up.
 
 Besides, then you'll have to re-read everything
 I've written since January 1st of this year, won't
 you? And you just *know* how you'll love doing that.
 
 :-) :-) :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote: 
 As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly
 elected president to ask for the resignations of
 political appointees, including U.S. attorneys,
 especially if they were appointed by the other party.
 
So, where's the scandal?

 What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys
 a president has appointed before the president's term
 is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause.
 
According to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated
very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment and
morale problems in Ryan's office. What do you think?

 In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that
 the cause in question was these attorneys'
 unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by
 the White House and Justice Department for political
 purposes.  The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department--
 are supposed to be independent of political influence.
 
So the fired U.S. Attorneys were political appointees. Where's the
scandal?

 The even more important question here is, how many
 of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their
 jobs because they *did* submit to political influence?
 
Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco
and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
  YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
  I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi.
 
Is this a true statement?

jstein wrote:
 And note once again that Barry has seen fit to
 repeat one of his more blatant lies.
 
So, you're saying that Barry lied.

 Talk about desperation...
 
In desperation.
 
  Put up or shut up.
  
So, where's the put up?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 jstein wrote: 
  As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly
  elected president to ask for the resignations of
  political appointees, including U.S. attorneys,
  especially if they were appointed by the other party.
  
 So, where's the scandal?

What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys
a president has appointed before the president's term
is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause.


 
  What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys
  a president has appointed before the president's term
  is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause.
  
 According to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated
 very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment 
and
 morale problems in Ryan's office. What do you think?
 
  In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that
  the cause in question was these attorneys'
  unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by
  the White House and Justice Department for political
  purposes.  The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department--
  are supposed to be independent of political influence.
  
 So the fired U.S. Attorneys were political appointees. Where's the
 scandal?

Try reading what I wrote:

The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department--
are supposed to be independent of political influence.


 
  The even more important question here is, how many
  of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their
  jobs because they *did* submit to political influence?
  
 Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco
 and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Richard J. Williams]

jstein wrote:
 Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
 attempt to divert attention from the issue of
 his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
 to his What TMers Believe posts, including
 blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
 censorship.
 
What I've noted is that you don't seem to like what Barry writes about
TMers. Maybe you're obsessed with Barry's writing, like Clinton was
obsessed with Al Qaeda in Iraq.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 TurquoiseB wrote:
   YOU are the person who keeps claiming that all
   I do here is bash TM, the TMO, and Maharishi.
  
 Is this a true statement?

Nope.  I never made that claim, certainly not
to exclude his constant bashing of TMers, both
as a group (globally and on FFL) and individually.


 
 jstein wrote:
  And note once again that Barry has seen fit to
  repeat one of his more blatant lies.
  
 So, you're saying that Barry lied.
 
  Talk about desperation...
  
 In desperation.
  
   Put up or shut up.
   
 So, where's the put up?

[FairfieldLife] Eurovision-blues (Hungary)

[cardemaister]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPMae29iOw

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
 attempt to divert attention from the issue of
 his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
 to his What TMers Believe posts, including
 blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
 censorship.

The title is THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Judy, not
What TMers Believe.

But thank you for your latest submission.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eurovision-blues (Hungary)

[curtisdeltablues]

That was cool.  It makes me want to do a video.  Reverse action looks
great.  I'll bet if I threw my slide off my finger it would fly on to
my finger in reverse Ali G style.  I've got to start thinking more
visually.  Thanks for posting this inspiration!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPMae29iOw

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 jstein wrote:
  Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
  attempt to divert attention from the issue of
  his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
  to his What TMers Believe posts, including
  blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
  censorship.
  
 What I've noted is that you don't seem to like what Barry 
 writes about TMers. Maybe you're obsessed with Barry's 
 writing, like Clinton was obsessed with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I think she's obsessed with me sexually, actually. :-)

Burt's batteries must have died.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Like a deer in the headlights?

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/03/09/190234.php

I was sorry to see Sundance go. He is really terrific. But, sometimes
they just don't seem to learn you gotta sing something popular. A
tremendous rendition of a song none of us ever heard of insures one
thing — back you go to your day job. Right Constantino?

Tremendous rendition? Oh give me a break!!! Sundance absolutely
*slaughtered* Pearl Jam's 'Jeremy'. I literally cringed during that
performance. Sundance has a great voice, but he screwed up on that
song, BIG TIME, and paid the price.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Vaj]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


jstein wrote:

Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
attempt to divert attention from the issue of
his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
to his What TMers Believe posts, including
blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
censorship.


What I've noted is that you don't seem to like what Barry writes about
TMers. Maybe you're obsessed with Barry's writing, like Clinton was
obsessed with Al Qaeda in Iraq.



More like Monica.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think she's obsessed with me sexually, actually. :-)
 
yeah, but you're the one that keeps f*cking with her...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[Richard J. Williams]

TurquoiseB wrote:
  I think she's obsessed with me sexually, actually. :-)
 
jim flanegin wrote: 
 yeah, but you're the one that keeps f*cking with her...

So, it's all about Judy and Barry. Be good, Jim!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

  So, where's the scandal?
 
jstein wrote:  
 What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys
 a president has appointed before the president's term
 is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause.
 
According to Iglesias he lost his job as the top federal prosecutor in
New Mexico after rebuffing Republican pressure to speed his
investigation of Democratic officials in the state. Apparently only
three of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys received low rankings. 
 
 The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department--
 are supposed to be independent of political influence.

But the U.S. Attorneys are political appointees that serve at the
discretion of the President. So, where is the scanadal? Why are you so
reluctant to say why the attorneys were fired? 

Reuters: Although most of the ousted prosecutors had received
positive job reviews, the Justice Department said they were largely
dismissed because of employment-related matters or policy differences.
Republicans in several states, including some where the party suffered
narrow losses to Democrats, had complained about alleged voter
registration fraud in the 2004 elections.

Full story:

'Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings'
By James Vicini
Reuters, March 13, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2lc4ls

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interdependence

[Jonathan Chadwick]

Great book.
   
  Odin, Steve.  Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of 
Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpenetration.  Albany: State University of New 
York Press, 1982.
  Abstract
  This work establishes the first comprehensive transcultural dialogue between 
East Asian Hua-Yen Buddhism and A. N. Whitehead's process philosophy, including 
both the profound parallels and the doctrinal debates that arise.  To advance 
the dialogue, several other western hermeneutical systems have been adopted in 
order to radically reinterpret Hua-Yen modes of thought, such as Jungian 
depth-psychology, Wittgenstein's linguistic analysis, Hegelian dialectics, and 
the phenomenology of Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty.  [Abstract from The 
Philosopher's Index]

jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Fun stuff about dharma. I also 
liked the Indras Net stuff about 
space, and the fractals. Thanks for posting it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, llundrub [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Bhikkhus, this bowl cannot exist independently. It is here 
thanks to all
 the things we consider non-bowl entities such as earth, water, 
fire, air,
 the potter, and so forth. It is the same for all dharmas. Every 
dharma
 exists in interdependent relation to all other dharmas. All 
dharmas exist
 by the principles of interpenetration and interbeing.
 
 Bhikkhus, look deeply at this bowl, and you can see the entire 
universe.
 This bowl contains the entire universe. There is only one thing 
the bowl is
 empty of and that is a separate, individual self. What is a 
separate,
 individual self? It is a self which exists completely on its own,
 independent of all other elements. No dharma can exist 
independently from
 other dharmas. No dharma posesses a separate, essential self. 
That is the
 meaning of emptiness. Empty means empty of self.
 
 Here's some links to stuff on the Jeweled Net of Indra, for those
 interested:
 
 Scroll down on this page for a short article on it:
 
 http://c1.zedo.com/jsc/c1/ff2.html?
n=162;c=1963/1;s=797;d=16;w=720;h=300;t=A
 dvertisement
 
 This is a list of all the implications of the Jeweled Net:
 http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html
 
 a short wikipedia article:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_Net
 
 These articles talks about the Jeweled Net in relation to the 
internet:
 
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/12/03/stories/1303076i.htm
 http://www.techgnosis.com/indranet.html - the first half of the 
page (the
 writer's snarky, the but guy he interviews is interesting)
 
 an article on Indra's Net and the law:
 http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/1999/Indras/
 
 Here's a graphic version:
 http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/indras-net.html
 
 Indra's Net animations:
 http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/optics/indra.html (I 
found this to
 be a particularly evocative quote from the site: A completely 
reflective
 sphere in void space is basically invisible in the absence of any 
external
 objects. In other words what the viewer sees on its surface, is 
only what
 gets reflected against it. But on every surface are reflected 
other such
 spheres, for which the same assumption holds (i.e. they are 
invisible). 
 
 a fractle of it:
 
 
http://www.jackhaas.net/art_Digital_Fractal_art_mandala_Jeweled_Web_o
f_Indra
 _Hindu_art.htm
 
 The Jeweled Net and the Glass Bead Game:
 http://www.glassbeadgame.com/GBG.htm
 
 Have Fun!
 :) Sean
 
 SNIPPED BY MODERATOR--PLEASE NOTE
 
 
 
 
 All composed things are like a dream, 
 an illusion, a bubble, or a shadow,
 Like dew or like a lightning flash,
 Meditate on them in this way.
 
 The Diamond Sutra, a Prajnaparamita text
 
 
 
 
 -
 Never miss an email again!
 Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it 
out.
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yahoo! Groups Links




 

 
-
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...

[Richard J. Williams]

jim flanegin wrote:
  You can't just make stuff up to prove your point.

So, Jim, did I make up anything that Clinton said about Iraq and the
reason for he wanted a regime change?

jstein wrote: 
 Sure he can. He does it all the time. That's what trolls *do*.

Stop the lying, Judy. I can post what Bill Clinton said about his
obsession with Al Qaeda in Iraq. You first brought up the subject. So,
why was Bill Clinton obsessed with Al Qaeda in Iraq? 

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability
of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The
international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume
cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize
the chance. - Bill Clinton, 1998

Full text:

'Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike'
CNN, Wednesday, December 16, 1998
http://tinyurl.com/5gm9

   The best way to end that threat once and for all is with
   a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace
   with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of 
   its people. - Bill Clinton
   
   Read more:
   
   'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance'
   CNN, December 16, 1998
   http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Like a deer in the headlights?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/03/09/190234.php
 
 I was sorry to see Sundance go. He is really terrific. But, 
 sometimes they just don't seem to learn you gotta sing something 
 popular. A tremendous rendition of a song none of us ever heard of 
 insures one thing — back you go to your day job. Right Constantino?
 
 Tremendous rendition? Oh give me a break!!! Sundance absolutely
 *slaughtered* Pearl Jam's 'Jeremy'. I literally cringed during that
 performance. Sundance has a great voice, but he screwed up on that
 song, BIG TIME, and paid the price.

While I may live in the land of wine drinkers and
brie eaters, of women who take themselves too seriously
and men who contribute to the women taking themselves
too seriously by taking themselves too seriously, and
of wonderful politicians like Chirac, Sarkozy, and
Le Pen, at least I can rest easy knowing that I have
no idea what ya'll are talking about in this thread. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  I think she's obsessed with me sexually, actually. :-)
  
 yeah, but you're the one that keeps f*cking with her...

Perhaps, but my keyboard is double-condomned.
You can't tell *where* that kootch has been...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interdependence

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Great book.

   Odin, Steve.  Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A 
Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpenetration.  
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982.
   Abstract
   This work establishes the first comprehensive transcultural 
dialogue between East Asian Hua-Yen Buddhism and A. N. Whitehead's 
process philosophy, including both the profound parallels and the 
doctrinal debates that arise.  To advance the dialogue, several 
other western hermeneutical systems have been adopted in order to 
radically reinterpret Hua-Yen modes of thought, such as Jungian 
depth-psychology, Wittgenstein's linguistic analysis, Hegelian 
dialectics, and the phenomenology of Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-
Ponty.  [Abstract from The Philosopher's Index]

Holy sh*t! so what do you do for *fun*?? (and why is Steve Odin 
studying 'cumulative penetration' anyway?) ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Why should being good and attaining enlightenment go together?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Note, by the way, that *all* of this is Barry's
 attempt to divert attention from the issue of
 his extraordinarily low-vibe behavior with regard
 to his What TMers Believe posts, including
 blatant dishonesty, gross hypocrisy, and attempted
 censorship.

Can't blame him for that really. The fellow needs his monthly paycheck 
to pay for expenses and vino