[FairfieldLife] MUM security flaws typical pattern in campus slayings

[bob_brigante]

USA Today:

•In March 2004, Shuvender Sem, who has a history of mental illness, stabbed to 
death a 
fellow student at Maharishi University of Management in Iowa just hours after 
attacking 
another student in a classroom. Joel Wysong, the university's dean of men, had 
taken Sem to 
his apartment after the first attack "to keep an eye on him," Wysong said in a 
police 
statement.

When Wysong left Sem alone in his kitchen, Sem took a paring knife, went to the 
dining hall 
and stabbed Levi Butler four times with no provocation.

http://tinyurl.com/yqs7kx

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

Hello again,

I just remembered that one of Swami G's books should be in 21st century book 
store, or also 
at amazon- Kundalini  from hell to heaven by Ganga Karmokar

I think I have that right

Tanmay

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

Hello, I will forward this suggestion but in all fairness, if you see
what I just said in the previous post, there are already 15 yahoo
groups Swami G is monoriting. It just took me a lot of time in just
this one group to go through the posts and weed out some unnecccessay
things

In addition to that, people are calling and also emailing directly,
and some are seeing Swami G in person. 

Swami G's general comments are that it is preferred not to have any
disciples but out of compassion is willing to work with sincere
disciples. One comment was there is nothing that a sadaka has for
which a Sat Guru is salivating over.

My impression is that it is not like oh Swami G is so thrilled to get
all these emails- no, it takes a lot of energy to respond to all of
this, so it is done where it is seen, coming from flow, that the
reponses are usefull for humanity.

I think if it is seen that a response to a sadaka or whoever will be a
waste of time, then the response won't be made.

Tanmay

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> > Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I
> > responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I
> > reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies
> > from Swami G
>  
> Her driving mind drove her to create a forum for criticizing TM, yet
> most of the people who'd be inclined to engage her are here. So, why
> doesn't she just subscribe to FFL and save you the trouble of being
> the go-between?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

Hello,

I just forwarded 10 posts from this group to Swami G, I did the best I
could to be sensible in leaving out a few posts, also from the new
thread with Swami G in the title.

There are two yahoo groups ( out of around 15) that Swami G monitors
and responds to posts. Some of you may consider joining them:


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276


and

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Swami-G/

Swami G is responding on the internet sometimes up to 15 hours per day.

Also, there are 13 videos on youtube under the search of guruswamig 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I
> responded, then noticed a long response to the post, so I
> reforwarded the entire commentary and will post any replies
> from Swami G
 
Her driving mind drove her to create a forum for criticizing TM, yet
most of the people who'd be inclined to engage her are here. So, why
doesn't she just subscribe to FFL and save you the trouble of being
the go-between?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On second thought, don't bother consulting Wikipedia, as 
apparently 
> someone with no understanding of Latin has revised it inaccurately 
>>


So you are saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 

All those interested please note: Rory is correct here, Wikipedia is 
not a reliable source.


< support your "secular" stance since I first gave the link. They 
did 
> forget to take out the line which says, correctly, "The word 
seclorum 
> does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive 
> (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this 
> context) generation, century, or age." >>

Which has no references to substantiate this dubious translation of 
17th century understanding of Latin. Very amatuerish source without 
references.

> 
> However, the new editor has then completely contradicted this 
correct 
> statement by -- after removing the reference to Dan Brown's 
> mistranslation of the phrase -- adding incorrect data like 
> the "Saecularis = Saeclorum" material you've posted here. I can 
> certainly understand the political motivation behind such a 
> mistranslation, as I too believe the "Founding Fathers" (not sure 
> where the Founding Mothers stood) were probably following a 
Masonic 
> rather than a Christian blueprint for this nation, but that's no 
> excuse for bad scholarship, is it? :-)>>


Correct again Rory.  Your "scholar" on Wikipedia actually states: 
''Saeculum'' did come to mean "world, worldly" in late, Christian, 
Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through ''secularis''.   

He is correct here, the founding fathers would have thought of it as 
meaning "secular", and that is obvious to scholars, but he doesn't 
use any references.

That is why I use proper references ! !!...unlike your Wikipedia 
pseudo-scholar:

c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," 
also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. 
sæcularis "worldly, secular,"  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?
search=secular

OffWorld




> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the 
> > adjective 
> > > > > Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"
> > > > > 
> > > > > In other words it means "secular" also.
> > 
> > No, SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the ages".
> >  
> > > > > Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the 
dispute?
> > 
> > See above; SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the 
> > ages."
> > 
> > 
> > > > The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO 
SAECULARIS.  
> >>>
> > > 
> > > LolYou were the one that compared it to SAECULARIS , not 
me. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > SECLORUM means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas 
if 
> > > they had  meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS.>>>
> > > 
> > > It does not mean 'of the ages' and the seal's designer, 
Charles 
> > > Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the 
New 
> > > American Era." 
> > 
> > Yes, the literal translation is "A New Order of the Ages." Feel 
> free 
> > to learn or re-learn Latin and see for yourself, or just take my 
> word 
> > for it, or check out the Wikipedia link I gave you before. Here 
it 
> is 
> > again:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum
> >  
> > > And according to your our own quote which states: 
> > > "Secular" -- from the adjective Saecularis: "worldly, secular, 
of 
> > > the age"
> > > 
> > > In other words it means "secular" also.
> > 
> > No, *only* SAECULARIS means "secular," SECLORUM means "of the 
> ages." 
> > I was pointing out how it would be easy to confuse the two 
words, 
> > given their similar sources, but it would still be a mistake to 
do 
> > so. 
> >  
> > > Seclorum means Saecularis which MEANS "worldy", "secular", so 
> what 
> > > is the dispute?
> > 
> > No, SECLORUM does *not* mean SAECULARIS. SECLORUM (noun, 
possessive 
> > plural) means, literally, "of the Ages," and SAECULARIS 
(adjective) 
> > means "worldly, secular." Again, feel free to take my word for 
it, 
> or 
> > learn Latin for yourself, or consult Wikipedia regarding its 
> nuances 
> > of meaning and its origins in Virgil's Eclogues:  
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum
> > 
> > I've said all I have to say on this subject, ad infinitum et ad 
> > nauseam :-), and so this will be my last post on the subject of 
> Novus 
> > Ordo Seclorum.
> > 
> > I am in agreement with you on Judy!
> > 
> > *L*L*L*
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

Even a worse situation- I only read one paragraph before I responded,
then noticed a long response to the post, so I reforwarded the entire
commentary and will post any replies from Swami G


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> 
> Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing
> around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
> within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami
> System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different
> for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
> addressing this. 
> 
> IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have
> wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of
> qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he
> was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because
> outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that
> up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must
> say, that I don't believe it.
> 
> > Note: I am forwarding  a response from Swami G to the last post. There
> > is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short
> > for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster,
> > and G = Swami G:
> > 
> > 
> > T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a
> Guru was 
> > appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take
full 
> > Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he 
> > was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost 
> > knowledge to a secretary. 
> >  
> > * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully 
> > knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one 
> > tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another 
> > tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, 
> > yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for 
> > instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But 
> > then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the
Dasanami 
> > Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati 
> > order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? 
> >  
> > G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of
> > tradition - 
> > ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are
> > Bharati/Giri/Puri 
> > and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time
with 
> > Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic
> > practices and 
> > knowledge. 
> 
> 
> That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order
> does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-)
> 
> > All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically 
> > Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name
associated 
> > with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. 
> 
> And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have
> only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the
> choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and
> he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This
> whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara
> order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam
> on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the
> Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed
> to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to
> enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin
> of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but
> ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the
> other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other
> orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three
> orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively
> reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly
> coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there
> less, and the south is generally more conservative.
> 
> So do i 
> > need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. 
> 
> Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just
> describing above.
> >  
> > * This would resolve her argument. 
> >  
> > G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the 
> > Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not
only 
> > here but also within this sect in india.  
> 
> Just to remind you what the argument is about - that there exists a
> formulism within Maharishis order that did not allow him to be a
> Sadhu. Instead of accepting that this is something that has to do with
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

Hello, I forwarded this to Swami G, there have been really a lot of
eamils today.

Anyway, what is a Braman? Swami G has pointed out in the past what a
Braman really is, as opposed to how it is practiced today- something
like what american gem society did to clasify birthstones in order to
sell the stones- but the selcetion of the gems was coming from a
deeper science- this is only an analogy, not really necessary that I
commented at all as I only was shown the tradition as Swami G is
recomending that people witness so that it is removed from the book
knowledge to some direct experience

I will forward Swami G's response so hold off on making any comment
from what I just wrote


Tanmay

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> 
> Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing
> around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
> within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami
> System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different
> for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
> addressing this. 
> 
> IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have
> wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of
> qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he
> was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because
> outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that
> up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must
> say, that I don't believe it.
> 
> > Note: I am forwarding  a response from Swami G to the last post. There
> > is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short
> > for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster,
> > and G = Swami G:
> > 
> > 
> > T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a
> Guru was 
> > appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take
full 
> > Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he 
> > was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost 
> > knowledge to a secretary. 
> >  
> > * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully 
> > knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one 
> > tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another 
> > tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, 
> > yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for 
> > instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But 
> > then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the
Dasanami 
> > Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati 
> > order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? 
> >  
> > G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of
> > tradition - 
> > ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are
> > Bharati/Giri/Puri 
> > and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time
with 
> > Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic
> > practices and 
> > knowledge. 
> 
> 
> That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order
> does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-)
> 
> > All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically 
> > Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name
associated 
> > with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. 
> 
> And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have
> only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the
> choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and
> he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This
> whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara
> order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam
> on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the
> Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed
> to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to
> enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin
> of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but
> ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the
> other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other
> orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three
> orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively
> reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly
> coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there
> less, and the south is generally more conservative.
> 
> So do i 
> > need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. 
> 
> Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't 

[FairfieldLife] Confused aboiut Swami-G (was Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi)

[Robert Gimbel]

 (snip)  
> Please help me Obewan, I'm just so empty.
> 
> empty
> 
Remember, empty, that the emtiness can only be filled with the fullness 
of love;
The more spaciousness there is, the more love is possible.
The more possibilities.
The more still you are, the more dynamic.
When you can breath in while breathing out,
And breath out while breathing in...
Then all is One.
With nothing left- out or in  when the yin pours into the yang, and the 
yang pours into the yin, and vice, versa, you get the idea

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[Rory Goff]

On second thought, don't bother consulting Wikipedia, as apparently 
someone with no understanding of Latin has revised it inaccurately to 
support your "secular" stance since I first gave the link. They did 
forget to take out the line which says, correctly, "The word seclorum 
does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive 
(possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this 
context) generation, century, or age." 

However, the new editor has then completely contradicted this correct 
statement by -- after removing the reference to Dan Brown's 
mistranslation of the phrase -- adding incorrect data like 
the "Saecularis = Saeclorum" material you've posted here. I can 
certainly understand the political motivation behind such a 
mistranslation, as I too believe the "Founding Fathers" (not sure 
where the Founding Mothers stood) were probably following a Masonic 
rather than a Christian blueprint for this nation, but that's no 
excuse for bad scholarship, is it? :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> 
> > > > Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the 
> adjective 
> > > > Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"
> > > > 
> > > > In other words it means "secular" also.
> 
> No, SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the ages".
>  
> > > > Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the dispute?
> 
> See above; SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the 
> ages."
> 
> 
> > > The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS.  
>>>
> > 
> > LolYou were the one that compared it to SAECULARIS , not me. 
> > 
> > 
> > > SECLORUM means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas if 
> > they had  meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS.>>>
> > 
> > It does not mean 'of the ages' and the seal's designer, Charles 
> > Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the New 
> > American Era." 
> 
> Yes, the literal translation is "A New Order of the Ages." Feel 
free 
> to learn or re-learn Latin and see for yourself, or just take my 
word 
> for it, or check out the Wikipedia link I gave you before. Here it 
is 
> again:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum
>  
> > And according to your our own quote which states: 
> > "Secular" -- from the adjective Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of 
> > the age"
> > 
> > In other words it means "secular" also.
> 
> No, *only* SAECULARIS means "secular," SECLORUM means "of the 
ages." 
> I was pointing out how it would be easy to confuse the two words, 
> given their similar sources, but it would still be a mistake to do 
> so. 
>  
> > Seclorum means Saecularis which MEANS "worldy", "secular", so 
what 
> > is the dispute?
> 
> No, SECLORUM does *not* mean SAECULARIS. SECLORUM (noun, possessive 
> plural) means, literally, "of the Ages," and SAECULARIS (adjective) 
> means "worldly, secular." Again, feel free to take my word for it, 
or 
> learn Latin for yourself, or consult Wikipedia regarding its 
nuances 
> of meaning and its origins in Virgil's Eclogues:  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum
> 
> I've said all I have to say on this subject, ad infinitum et ad 
> nauseam :-), and so this will be my last post on the subject of 
Novus 
> Ordo Seclorum.
> 
> I am in agreement with you on Judy!
> 
> *L*L*L*
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Agreed. Judy has a bigger dick than any of her detractors on this 
> board. its a hoot!:-)

You don't say! That along with her "horse laughs" make for a very pretty 
picture indeed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[Rory Goff]

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

> > > Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the 
adjective 
> > > Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"
> > > 
> > > In other words it means "secular" also.

No, SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the ages".
 
> > > Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the dispute?

See above; SAECULARIS means "secular" and SECLORUM means "of the 
ages."


> > The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS.  >>>
> 
> LolYou were the one that compared it to SAECULARIS , not me. 
> 
> 
> > SECLORUM means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas if 
> they had  meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS.>>>
> 
> It does not mean 'of the ages' and the seal's designer, Charles 
> Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the New 
> American Era." 

Yes, the literal translation is "A New Order of the Ages." Feel free 
to learn or re-learn Latin and see for yourself, or just take my word 
for it, or check out the Wikipedia link I gave you before. Here it is 
again:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum
 
> And according to your our own quote which states: 
> "Secular" -- from the adjective Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of 
> the age"
> 
> In other words it means "secular" also.

No, *only* SAECULARIS means "secular," SECLORUM means "of the ages." 
I was pointing out how it would be easy to confuse the two words, 
given their similar sources, but it would still be a mistake to do 
so. 
 
> Seclorum means Saecularis which MEANS "worldy", "secular", so what 
> is the dispute?

No, SECLORUM does *not* mean SAECULARIS. SECLORUM (noun, possessive 
plural) means, literally, "of the Ages," and SAECULARIS (adjective) 
means "worldly, secular." Again, feel free to take my word for it, or 
learn Latin for yourself, or consult Wikipedia regarding its nuances 
of meaning and its origins in Virgil's Eclogues:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum

I've said all I have to say on this subject, ad infinitum et ad 
nauseam :-), and so this will be my last post on the subject of Novus 
Ordo Seclorum.

I am in agreement with you on Judy!

*L*L*L*

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering 
you, 
> > > > > > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > > > > > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have 
ever 
> > > > > > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > > > > > until you apologize like a man. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hereby apologize.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > And you'll notice how quickly he apologized.
> > > > 
> > > > Not only will Judy not do it quickly, she won't do it at all.
> > > > 
> > > 
> OffWorld>>> > For what? Please point to the exact post.>>
> > 
> > 
> 
> Shemp: 
> > For being Judy.
> > 
> > Time.
> > 
> > And time.
> > 
> > And time again.>>
> 
> 
> Another man on FFL with issues about women that he can't deal 
with, 
> except through irrational suprematism.
> 
> OffWorld
>
Agreed. Judy has a bigger dick than any of her detractors on this 
board. its a hoot!:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[lurkernomore20002000]

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

>  The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS. 
SECLORUM 

Is this like when Buddy Hackett visited the Vatican and asked too many 
questions about the opulance he saw there - the Pope finally had 
enough and said "Abscounda illegitimo obesceri", which translates 
as, "get otta here you fat bastard"

lurk :)

[FairfieldLife] Confused aboiut Swami-G (was Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi)

[emptybill]

Help me Obewan.

I was reading through a few posts and since I'm new to the forum I 
just couldn't figure out who this swami-g was. I clicked on a link 
provide by a "sidha7001" and it took me to a website with a picture 
of some pujari doing an agni-hotra. The pujari's ritual looked nice 
but I was quite puzzled. There was this fat white woman in some kind 
of orange prison jumpsuit standing next to him. It just didn't make 
sense to me. I kept wondering … what is this white woman doing in the 
same room with a brahmana? Then I thought … was this photo taken in 
India? Are they doing prison programs now with Brahmins cleaning away 
the sins of ordinary criminals? And what is that tall orange thingy 
she's holding? Is it like one of those telemetric ankle bracelets 
that authorities use to track people out of detention? Kinda cool 
looking.

So I'm wondering … how can I get one of those thingys?

Here's the link-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TM_Discussion/?yguid=228252276

Please help me Obewan, I'm just so empty.

empty


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Note: I am forwarding  a response from Swami G to the last post. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[lurkernomore20002000]

This is what Peter is talking about, and I agree thorougly.  But it 
is not going to stop.  It is a 10 yr. plus habit, and an addiction 
like most others. 

lurk  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
> > had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
> > slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
> > grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
> > I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
> > going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
> > hominem here because you've been "attacked."
> > 
> > You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
> > didn't have to.
> 
> No, Barry, there was no attack on you in my post.
> Nor was I "fuming" over your referring to me as
> "the pig." As I said, it was amusing. Can't you
> laugh at yourself, three years later, instead of
> attacking me for laughing at you?
> 
> And the post wasn't even *about* you. You were
> just a bit of backstory.
> 
> My post to Vaj, of course, was in response to a
> post of his attacking *me* as a liar (which was
> a lie).
> 
> 'Fraid you've struck out again.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > > > > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > > > > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > > > > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > > > > until you apologize like a man. 
> > > > 
> > > > I hereby apologize.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > And you'll notice how quickly he apologized.
> > > 
> > > Not only will Judy not do it quickly, she won't do it at all.
> > > 
> > 
OffWorld>>> > For what? Please point to the exact post.>>
> 
> 

Shemp: 
> For being Judy.
> 
> Time.
> 
> And time.
> 
> And time again.>>


Another man on FFL with issues about women that he can't deal with, 
except through irrational suprematism.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> >> 
> > "Seclorum" disputed:
> > 
> > Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the adjective 
> > Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"
> > 
> > In other words it means "secular" also.
> > 
> > Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the dispute?
> 
> The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS.  >>>

LolYou were the one that compared it to SAECULARIS , not me. 


> SECLORUM means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas if 
they had  meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS.>>>

It does not mean 'of the ages' and the seal's designer, Charles 
Thomson, wrote that the words "signify the beginnings of the New 
American Era." 

And according to your our own quote which states: 
"Secular" -- from the adjective Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of 
the age"

In other words it means "secular" also.

Seclorum means Saecularis which MEANS "worldy", "secular", so what 
is the dispute?

sec•u•lar- ADJECTIVE:
1.Worldly, rather than spiritual.
2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body:
secular music.
3.Relating to or advocating secularism.
4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a
religious order. Used of the clergy.
5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6.Lasting from century to century
7.http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/secular
And it appears more related to these:

secedo : to go apart, withdraw.
secerno secrevi secretum : to separate.
seco : secui : sectum : to cut, hurt, wound, amputate, divide, part.
securis : axe, hatchet, battle-axe.

ie. separation of religion and state.

secular

c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order,"
also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L.
sæcularis "worldly, secular,"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=secular


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > > > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > > > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > > > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > > > until you apologize like a man. 
> > > 
> > > I hereby apologize.
> > >
> > 
> > And you'll notice how quickly he apologized.
> > 
> > Not only will Judy not do it quickly, she won't do it at all.
> > 
> 
> For what?



For being Judy.

Time.

And time.

And time again.





> Please point to the exact post.
> 
> OffWorld
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marek Reavis wrote:


Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated)
the "Yogi" suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly
accorded a Hatha Yogi?


Not necessarily a hatha yogi, but a practitioner of yoga-darshana  
(which includes hatha-yoga).



Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha
Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did
or did not do Hatha Yoga.


When I say "yogi" I don't usually mean it to refer to a hatha-yogi,  
although asana and even hatha-yoga may be practiced.



And if memory serves, Cenkner's Ph.D. thesis on the development of
the SRM mentions that at Guru Dev's ashrams meditation and pranayama
was emphasized/practiced more than asanas. If so, then Maharishi's
own lack of expertise might be why he enlisted the help of a more
formal practitioner.


An interesting thought.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Peter]

--- Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with
> life
> 
>  
> 
> Rick, would you consider banning people from FFL who
> continue to denigrate others, perpetuate these
> mindless personal arguments and just waste
> everybody's
> time with these very personal posts. Individually,
> when these posters stay on task, they can have some
> pretty interesting posts, but this continual
> childish
> bickering is absurd. Ban them for a month. Maybe
> that
> will straighten them out ala Paris Hilton
> 
> I haven’t been reading this thread because the title
> implies that it is the
> kind of topic you say it is. I’m surprised that some
> of the people involved
> in it are wasting their posts on it. I’d rather not
> get into banning people.

I understand. Hopefully the posting limit will reduce
this stuff as it has to a certain extent. 



> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 -
> Release Date: 6/12/2007
> 6:39 AM
>  
> 



 

Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:22 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

 

Rick, would you consider banning people from FFL who
continue to denigrate others, perpetuate these
mindless personal arguments and just waste everybody's
time with these very personal posts. Individually,
when these posters stay on task, they can have some
pretty interesting posts, but this continual childish
bickering is absurd. Ban them for a month. Maybe that
will straighten them out ala Paris Hilton

I haven’t been reading this thread because the title implies that it is the
kind of topic you say it is. I’m surprised that some of the people involved
in it are wasting their posts on it. I’d rather not get into banning people.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>> 
> "Seclorum" disputed:
> 
> Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the adjective 
> Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"
> 
> In other words it means "secular" also.
> 
> Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the dispute?

The phrase is NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, not NOVUS ORDO SAECULARIS. SECLORUM 
means "of the Ages," or "of the Centuries," whereas if they had 
meant "Secular" they would have used SAECULARIS. Check out Wikkipedia's 
entry  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Seclorum for a nice 
discussion on the phrase's origins and nuances :-)
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Rory Goff]

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> > Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were 
> > Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on 
> > establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum  (see your dollar 
notes ) "New 
> > Secular Order" 

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

> Quick note -- Novus Ordo Seclorum translates as "New" 
(Novus) "Order" 
> (Ordo) "of the Ages, Generations or Centuries"  (Seclorum or more 
> fully Saeculorum being the genitive or possessive plural of 
> Saeculum, "Age" or "Century" (viz. the French cognate siecle, as in 
> fin-de-siecle, "end of the century"). "Secular" -- from the 
adjective 
> Saecularis, "worldly, secular, of the age" -- would be a rather 
> egregious mistranslation of Seclorum, the sort of "scholarship" Dan 
> Brown's supposedly-learned characters  frequently demonstrate, to 
the 
> amusement of anyone who actually stayed awake through a decent 
> humanities course in college, or were fortunate enough to take 
Latin 
> in high school before it was phased out :-)
> 

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
 
> that the Freemasons and Sir Francis Bacon (councillor 
> > to Queen Elizabeth I, and called the "Grandfather of Modern 
> > Science" ) had espoused.

Actually, a surprising number of the better-educated Puritan leaders 
were alchemists, mystical scientists, followers of John Dee (a far 
more interesting character than Francis Bacon, IMO) -- John Winthrop, 
for example (as evinced by his fascinating library, some of the books 
of which still contain John Dee's signature and Monas Hieroglyphica), 
and Winthrop's sons and grandsons, and Richard Starkey, and Gershom 
Bulkeley, among others. It's true that they believed that Salvation 
only came through Christ, and they (the Puritans especially) did 
their best to "save" as many Indians as possible, but that was hardly 
unique to their sect. Many of these men --like the famed Puritan 
missionary John Eliot -- loved and respected Indians, and tried hard 
to faciliate their acquisition of European living standards, which 
many Indians themselves were more than willing to accept. Most 
Indians were great respecters of what we might call "mana" -- the 
spiritual power in a well-made object, and there is no denying that 
the Europeans had better technology and thus objects with 
better "mana". When the tensions with the Indians escalated in the 
1690s and the Indians began preparations for the disastrous King 
Phillip's War, the highly influential Indian Supervisor Daniel Gookin 
tried very hard to defuse the situation, but hotter heads prevailed, 
and Gookin became most unpopular.

> > And the "Pilgrims" at Plymouth Rock he probably thinks were 
freedom 
> > seekers running from English oppression, when in fact, by their 
own 
> > philosphy and actions, were repressive, hateful, fundamentalist 
> > christians, who murdered Indians who did not convert, 

Actually, as I understand it, it's estimated that up to 90% of the 
Indians in New England had already died off before the Pilgrims 
showed up in 1620: In part from the Tarrantine Wars, waged by an 
extemely fierce tribe of that name spurred on by the French in 
Canada, and in part through the ravages of disease sown unawares by 
the European traders and fishermen who had been visiting America for 
decades if not centuries before the Pilgrims' arrival. The Indians 
had no natural immunities to these "new" diseases, and by 1620 there 
were almost no survivors along the Massachusetts coast. Squanto was 
the last and only survivor of his tribe. He already spoke English 
because of his tribe's contacts with these pre-Pilgrim traders.

>and who left 
> > England because Queen Elizabeth 

Queen Elizabeth had died in 1603, and the Pilgrims didn't leave for 
Amsterdam and Leyden until 1607 and 1608, well into the reign of King 
James.

>Freemason council 

Freemasonry wasn't officially acknowledged by the crown until the 
formation of the First Grand Lodge in 1717-- which is not to say that 
unofficial, proto-Masonic bodies didn't exist. I am fond of 
Robinson's "Born in Blood" for a credible hypothesis of the 
relationship between the exiled Templars in Scotland, 14th century, 
and the earliest Scots masons of the following century.

>were against 
> > religious repression, 

Both Elizabeth and King James were very much into religious 
repression, as both used religion to support the State. AFAIK neither 
ruler hesitated to declare "wrong beliefs" as treason meriting death 
by public dismemberment etc.

>and didn't let the "Puritans" practice their 
> > sectarian fundamentalist religion in the towns and villages of 
> Devon 
> > and Cornwall, where, if you were "not with them, you were with 
the 
> > Devil".

Mostly because rulers like Queen Elizabeth and King James considered 
themselves to be God's agents, if not microcosmic Gods (remembe

[FairfieldLife] Seclorum Disputed ---- was/How Judy...

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> > Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were 
> > Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on 
> > establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum  (see your dollar 
notes ) "New 
> > Secular Order" 
> 
> Quick note -- Novus Ordo Seclorum translates as "New" 
(Novus) "Order" 
> (Ordo) "of the Ages, Generations or Centuries"  (Seclorum or more 
> fully Saeculorum being the genitive or possessive plural of 
> Saeculum, "Age" or "Century" (viz. the French cognate siecle, as 
in 
> fin-de-siecle, "end of the century"). "Secular" -- from the 
adjective 
> Saecularis, "worldly, secular, of the age" -- would be a rather 
> egregious mistranslation of Seclorum, the sort of "scholarship" 
Dan 
> Brown's supposedly-learned characters  frequently demonstrate, to 
the 
> amusement of anyone who actually stayed awake through a decent 
> humanities course in college, or were fortunate enough to take 
Latin 
> in high school before it was phased out :-)>>



"Seclorum" disputed:

Actually, your own quote states: "Secular" -- from the adjective 
Saecularis: "worldly, secular, of the age"

In other words it means "secular" also.

Saecularis MEANS "worldy", "secular",  so what is the dispute?

sec•u•lar- ADJECTIVE: 
1.Worldly rather than spiritual. 
2.Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: 
secular music. 
3.Relating to or advocating secularism. 
4.Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a 
religious order. Used of the clergy. 
5.Occurring or observed once in an age or century. 
6.Lasting from century to century
7.http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/secular
And it appears more related to these: 

secedo : to go apart, withdraw. 
secerno secrevi secretum : to separate. 
seco : secui : sectum : to cut, hurt, wound, amputate, divide, part. 
securis : axe, hatchet, battle-axe. 

ie. separation of religion and state.

secular  

c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," 
also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. 
sæcularis "worldly, secular,"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=secular


OffWorld


 
> that the Freemasons and Sir Francis Bacon (councillor 
> > to Queen Elizabeth I, and called the "Grandfather of Modern 
> > Science" ) had espoused.
> > 
> > And the "Pilgrims" at Plymouth Rock he probably thinks were 
freedom 
> > seekers running from English oppression, when in fact, by their 
own 
> > philosphy and actions, were repressive, hateful, fundamentalist 
> > christians, who murdered Indians who did not convert, and who 
left 
> > England because Queen Elizabeth and Freemason council were 
against 
> > religious repression, and didn't let the "Puritans" practice 
their 
> > sectarian fundamentalist religion in the towns and villages of 
> Devon 
> > and Cornwall, where, if you were "not with them, you were with 
the 
> > Devil".
> > 
> > OffWorld
> > 
> > 
> > .
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Marek Reavis]

Vaj, I've never heard how Maharishi received (or appropriated) 
the "Yogi" suffix, but do you believe that it is only correctly 
accorded a Hatha Yogi? Certainly, Guru Dev was spoken of as a Siddha 
Yogi although no account I've read says anything about whether he did 
or did not do Hatha Yoga.

And if memory serves, Cenkner's Ph.D. thesis on the development of 
the SRM mentions that at Guru Dev's ashrams meditation and pranayama 
was emphasized/practiced more than asanas.  If so, then Maharishi's 
own lack of expertise might be why he enlisted the help of a more 
formal practitioner.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:24 PM, boo_lives wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was 
that  
> > since
> > > > > Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it 
from
> > > > > her direct experience being in that living tradition
> > > >
> > > > Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
> > > > *could* have been:
> > > >
> > > > "He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
> > > > is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
> > > > that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
> > > > could have become an full initiate."
> > > >
> > > > This was quoted in the post to which you were
> > > > replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
> > > > decided she had said exactly the opposite?
> > > >
> > > > > --he would not be
> > > > > able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition.
> > > >
> > > > > Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the
> > > > > tradition.
> > > >
> > > > In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has
> > > > he ever actually made the claim?
> > > >
> > > > > If he didn't
> > > > > have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it
> > > > > nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM
> > > > > was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say
> > > > > that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and 
where
> > > > > TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics.
> > > >
> > > > But not from MMY himself.
> > > >
> > > > But essentially one is left to
> > > > > conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some 
story-
> > > > > telling going on from Mr. Varma.
> > > >
> > > > Such as?
> > > >
> > > > > I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added
> > > > > to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his
> > > > > guru-bhais.
> > > >
> > > > This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner
> > > > of yoga?
> > > >
> > > As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later
> > > affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it:
> > >
> > > The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving 
mantra  
> > diksha
> > > to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my 
friend, an
> > > israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, 
by a
> > > mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time 
in his
> > > vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their 
fold,
> > > that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 
200
> > > western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is 
this:  
> > Okay,
> > > I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept 
secret,  
> > which
> > > in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully
> > > intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master 
can
> > > shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have
> > > experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply 
give a
> > > transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. 
He
> > > wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be 
used
> > > for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that
> > > wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means,
> > > especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just 
imagine
> > > poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, 
basically
> > > doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the 
Kumbh and
> > > all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru 
Dev
> > > would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for 
you, you
> > > are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of
> > > course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he 
could
> > > have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at 
the
> > > kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation 
and
> > > there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or 
btw.
> > > any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  
> wrote:
> > Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were 
> > Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on 
> > establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum  (see your dollar 
notes ) "New 
> > Secular Order" 
> 
> Quick note -- Novus Ordo Seclorum translates as "New" 
(Novus) "Order" 
> (Ordo) "of the Ages, Generations or Centuries"  (Seclorum or more 
> fully Saeculorum being the genitive or possessive plural of 
> Saeculum, "Age" or "Century" (viz. the French cognate siecle, as 
in 
> fin-de-siecle, "end of the century"). "Secular" -- from the 
adjective 
> Saecularis, "worldly, secular, of the age" -- would be a rather 
> egregious mistranslation of Seclorum, the sort of "scholarship" 
Dan 
> Brown's supposedly-learned characters  frequently demonstrate, to 
the 
> amusement of anyone who actually stayed awake through a decent 
> humanities course in college, or were fortunate enough to take 
Latin 
> in high school before it was phased out :-)>>


Doh !


.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > > until you apologize like a man. 
> > 
> > I hereby apologize.
> >
> 
> And you'll notice how quickly he apologized.
> 
> Not only will Judy not do it quickly, she won't do it at all.
> 

For what? Please point to the exact post.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Marek Reavis]

Just want to echo Nablusoss' appreciation of all the information you 
posted and ask a related question: the Saraswati order is one of 3 
that you said are only for Brahmins; what are the other 2?  Also, 
I've understood that at least some of the Dashanami orders are 
entirely defunct, such as Sagar and Parvata; is this true (or do you 
know)?

Thanks again for the informed posting.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity  wrote:
> >
> 
> > 
> > Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is 
tiptoeing
> > around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
> > within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the 
Dasanami
> > System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is 
different
> > for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
> > addressing this. 
> 
> You seem to posses quite a lot of knowledge on this. Thanks for 
sharing 
> with us. Since I have no knowledge of all these controversies; does 
> this mean that this Guru/Swami can not have been ordained as she 
> claims ?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were 
> Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on 
> establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum  (see your dollar notes ) "New 
> Secular Order" 

Quick note -- Novus Ordo Seclorum translates as "New" (Novus) "Order" 
(Ordo) "of the Ages, Generations or Centuries"  (Seclorum or more 
fully Saeculorum being the genitive or possessive plural of 
Saeculum, "Age" or "Century" (viz. the French cognate siecle, as in 
fin-de-siecle, "end of the century"). "Secular" -- from the adjective 
Saecularis, "worldly, secular, of the age" -- would be a rather 
egregious mistranslation of Seclorum, the sort of "scholarship" Dan 
Brown's supposedly-learned characters  frequently demonstrate, to the 
amusement of anyone who actually stayed awake through a decent 
humanities course in college, or were fortunate enough to take Latin 
in high school before it was phased out :-)

that the Freemasons and Sir Francis Bacon (councillor 
> to Queen Elizabeth I, and called the "Grandfather of Modern 
> Science" ) had espoused.
> 
> And the "Pilgrims" at Plymouth Rock he probably thinks were freedom 
> seekers running from English oppression, when in fact, by their own 
> philosphy and actions, were repressive, hateful, fundamentalist 
> christians, who murdered Indians who did not convert, and who left 
> England because Queen Elizabeth and Freemason council were against 
> religious repression, and didn't let the "Puritans" practice their 
> sectarian fundamentalist religion in the towns and villages of 
Devon 
> and Cornwall, where, if you were "not with them, you were with the 
> Devil".
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> 
> .
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY addresses Lynch weekend at MUM

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante  
> wrote:
> >
> > Maharishi continued his address to the Second Annual David Lynch 
> > Weekend held 25-28 May at Maharishi University of Management in 
> > Fairfield, Iowa, USA by describing the plans for bringing Vedic 
> > Pandits to create peace in various parts of the world. 
> > 
> > He said, 'So ... people are being selected in India, the Vedic 
> > Pandits, it is their profession ... There is a branch of Vedic 
> > Knowledge—Jyotish—...it's all mathematical calculations based on 
> the 
> > birth charts. When a man is born you can have a chart for all his 
> > life, he'll do like that in this month, he'll do like that in this 
> > month, he'll suffer like that in this month; all that can be 
> remedied 
> > through the Yagya' Maharishi continued, 'So all these Pandits 
> are 
> > getting ready, they'll come out in every country ... fly and 
> relieve 
> > the people of their suffering.' 
> > 
> > Maharishi explained another approach to eliminating suffering on 
> the 
> > individual level—this time in the field of health. He briefly 
> > described the technology utilized in Maharishi Vedic Vibration, an 
> > aspect of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health . 'A Vedic Pandit says 
> > some mantras ... and he blows off all the pain in the head or the 
> > anywhere in the body or anything. It sounds miraculous, so ... now 
> is 
> > not the time to shake the people with miraculous word[s]; we just 
> > produce what we want.' Maharishi pointed to the many benefits as 
> > evidenced by the huge amount of scientific research which has been 
> > done to show that Maharishi Vedic Vibration technology is effective 
> > in eliminating sickness. 
> > 
> > Returning to the theme of the Yogic Flying Vedic Pandits practising 
> > in groups around the globe, Maharishi said, 'It's a very great joy 
> of 
> > ours to have that ability that a country as a whole cannot go wrong 
> > and therefore cannot fall into suffering of any kind. Time is 
> coming, 
> > time is coming, time is coming.' 
> > 
> > 'And that will be perpetual on the basis of these few hundred 
> people 
> > engaged in this process. On their own level they'll rise to 
> > enlightenment, and their environment will induce all positivity in 
> > their surroundings; people can't go wrong in that, just as if there 
> > is light, they don't tumble down and break their knees and head—
> it's 
> > light—they're living in light, that's all. So that is our pride 
> > today. Just wait a few maybe a few weeks, a few months.'
> 


> What an inspiration to read ! And what a relief to read quotes from a 
> teacher devoid of the "I, Me, the Guru" mindset.
>


**

Absolutely. When MMY visited MIU in 1975 (?), a reporter from the Fairfield 
Ledger asked 
him how many followers he had, to which Maharishi replied (possible paraphrase 
here), "I 
don't have any followers -- people follow themselves in every way."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Safari now available windows

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So you've tried it?
> 
> Is it really faster that IE?
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:41 AM, bob_brigante wrote:
> 
> > Looks like a better browser than IE7, but does not support Yahoo's
> > newest mail, so I have to use both IE7 and Safari:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/technology/12apple.html
>

***

It does seem to the casual observer (me) that it is faster than IE7, and it 
looks better, too.  
But, as noted, Yahoo mail's beta does not currently support Safari, and I also 
like the Yahoo 
toolbar, which is also not available for Safari, so I'll continue to have both 
Safari and IE7.

[FairfieldLife] pandits

[george_deforest]

http://enlightenmenttoday.com/articles/volume1/issue4/index.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> >
> > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > until you apologize like a man. 
> 
> I hereby apologize.
>

And you'll notice how quickly he apologized.

Not only will Judy not do it quickly, she won't do it at all.

Indeed, she'll post here that she doesn't have anything to apologise 
for.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
>  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Not interested.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> > > > > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> > > > > > it (and then deleted the post)?
> > > > > 
> > > > > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
> > > > > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
> > > > > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
> > > > > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
> > > > > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
> > > > > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
> > > > > the distribution copy of the film.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
> > > > > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
> > > > > with enlightenment, too?  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > > "Apocalypto," you see).
> > > 
> > > From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a 
> > > repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com,
> > > but which contained the following lines, *all* 
> > > written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never 
> > > seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, 
> > > the text in brackets in the second paragraph 
> > > was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph
> > > was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > > how many people would agree with her.
> > 
> > Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> > 
> > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> > 
> > Obviously *not* "critical opinion."
> > 
> > > (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his 
> > > film
> > 
> > Not slander, either.
> > 
> >  *that she never saw) was warrented, see 
> > > above. Judy's "Not interested." 
> > > 
> > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > > 
> > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > > bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, that's not how I saw it.
> 
> SPOILER
> 
> The arrival of the Europeans happens in, literally, the last 30 
> seconds of the movie.  I saw the European arrival as the Apocalyse 
> suggested by the title of the movie, not some sort of coming of 
> sanity and paternalism.  This is the author projecting his own 
> opinions onto Gibson's work probably because he thinks Gibson is 
> sending some sort of Christian message.
> 
> But, of course, it could very well be that Gibson also feels it is 
> the Europeans who are bringing the Apocalyse to the Mayans.  
Gibson's 
> Christian beliefs are so whacky and out of the mainstream that he 
> probably feels -- as most fanatics do -- that any deviation from 
his 
> strict interpretations of scripture leads to bad consequences and, 
> certainly, that applies to all Christians (except for a select 
few) 
> that came before him...including the Spaniards who landed on the 
> shores of Mexico. Anyone that has seen the film knows his heart is 
> squarely with the Mayans...indeed, he probably LOVES all the 
torture 
> stuff and regards it not as evidence of savagery and low-evolution 
> but as high-evolution and a necessary passage to mankind.


Gibson probably also thinks the Founding Fathers of America were 
Christians, when in fact most of them were FreeMasons intent on 
establishing the Novus Ordo Seclorum  (see your dollar notes ) "New 
Secular Order" that the Freemasons and Sir Francis Bacon (councillor 
to Queen Elizabeth I, and called the "Grandfather of Modern 
Science" ) had espoused.

And the "Pilgrims" at Plymouth Rock he probably thinks were freedom 
seekers running from English oppression, when in fact, by their own 
philosphy and actions, were repressive, hateful, fundamentalist 
christians, who murdered Indians who did not convert, and who left 
England because Queen Elizabeth and Freemason council were aga

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:24 PM, boo_lives wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > > What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that  
since

> > > Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> > > her direct experience being in that living tradition
> >
> > Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
> > *could* have been:
> >
> > "He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
> > is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
> > that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
> > could have become an full initiate."
> >
> > This was quoted in the post to which you were
> > replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
> > decided she had said exactly the opposite?
> >
> > > --he would not be
> > > able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition.
> >
> > > Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the
> > > tradition.
> >
> > In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has
> > he ever actually made the claim?
> >
> > > If he didn't
> > > have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it
> > > nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM
> > > was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say
> > > that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where
> > > TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics.
> >
> > But not from MMY himself.
> >
> > But essentially one is left to
> > > conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story-
> > > telling going on from Mr. Varma.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > > I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added
> > > to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his
> > > guru-bhais.
> >
> > This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner
> > of yoga?
> >
> As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later
> affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it:
>
> The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra  
diksha

> to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an
> israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a
> mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his
> vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold,
> that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200
> western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this:  
Okay,
> I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret,  
which

> in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully
> intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can
> shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have
> experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a
> transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He
> wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used
> for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that
> wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means,
> especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine
> poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically
> doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and
> all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev
> would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you
> are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of
> course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could
> have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the
> kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and
> there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw.
> any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he
> didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely
> dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just
> dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a  
Brahmachari?

> I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant.
>
Who said anything about GD "dumping" MMY. Why is it impossible to
have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee??? There's a world of
difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor
to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him.


I certainly did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it. GD was said  
to be harsh of M. but never would have shunned such a devoted student.


The person who said that M. was not a yogi was actually one of the  
Shankaracharyas IIRC.


I would think common sense could also make this clear. If M. was a  
yogi, he could have easily written a brilliant book or even better a  
course with his sharp intellect. But this is clearly not the case.  
Instead they found a HS gym teacher to do so and those formed the  
sets us

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > > until you apologize like a man. 
> > 
> > I hereby apologize.
> 
> 
> Did you spit or scratch your crotch while you apologized? That is 
how
> real men do it. >>


Speak for yourself.

OffWorld

.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> >
> > Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> > Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> > disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> > seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> > until you apologize like a man. 
> 
> I hereby apologize.


Did you spit or scratch your crotch while you apologized? That is how
real men do it. 


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
> Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most 
> disgusting and hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever 
> seen, you have no credibility about anything like this 
> until you apologize like a man. 

I hereby apologize. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Judy:
> > > > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > > > > "Apocalypto," you see).
> > 
> > Judy a few months ago (stuff in brackets in the 
> > 2nd paragraph and all of the Subject title and 
> > final paragraph:
> > > > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > > > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > > > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > > > > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > > > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > > > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > > > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > > > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > > > > bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> > > > > 
> > > > > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > > > > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > > > > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > > > > purported superiority of Christianity.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > > > how many people would agree with her.
> > > 
> > > Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> > > 
> > > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> > > 
> > > Obviously *not* "critical opinion."
> > 
> > Thank you for redefining "critical opinion" 
> > for us, Judy. 
> > 
> > I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
> > future posts here when referring to you, 
> > secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
> > sional editor, after all) have declared that
> > the use of this term is not critical.
> 
> Or perhaps, in light of the unprovoked attack
> you *started* this short week (for you, at 
> least...you only have one post left) with, 
> I should refer to you as "the pigot."
> 
> :-)
> 
> I'm making this post while you've still got one
> post left, in case you want to get the inevitable
> response out of your system before you take 
> another "long weekend." That way you won't have
> to carry your anger around with you all weekend 
> like you obviously did *last* weekend.
> 
> Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
> had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
> slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
> grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
> I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
> going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
> hominem here because you've been "attacked."
> 
> You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
> didn't have to. >>

Don't know what this thread is about, but considering you, 
Turquoise, have never apologized for some of the most disgusting and 
hateful attacks (against Judy) I have ever seen, you have no 
credibility about anything like this until you apologize like a man. 
She has shown incredible restraint considering your hateful attacks 
of the past. 

OffWorld




.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:24 PM, boo_lives wrote:

>> So you think GD just
>> dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari?

No, he dumped him, saying: Hit the road, Jack.

>> I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant.

Me too.  I mean, GD really could have gone to the trouble to make up 
his own lyrics.

> Who said anything about GD "dumping" MMY.  Why is it impossible to
> have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee???

Question of the year.

>   There's a world of
> difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor
> to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> 
> Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing
> around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
> within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami
> System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different
> for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
> addressing this. 

You seem to posses quite a lot of knowledge on this. Thanks for sharing 
with us. Since I have no knowledge of all these controversies; does 
this mean that this Guru/Swami can not have been ordained as she 
claims ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

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

> Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
> had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
> slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
> grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
> I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
> going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
> hominem here because you've been "attacked."
> 
> You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
> didn't have to.

No, Barry, there was no attack on you in my post.
Nor was I "fuming" over your referring to me as
"the pig." As I said, it was amusing. Can't you
laugh at yourself, three years later, instead of
attacking me for laughing at you?

And the post wasn't even *about* you. You were
just a bit of backstory.

My post to Vaj, of course, was in response to a
post of his attacking *me* as a liar (which was
a lie).

'Fraid you've struck out again.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > > What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since  
> > > Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> > > her  direct experience being in that living tradition
> > 
> > Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
> > *could* have been:
> > 
> > "He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
> > is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
> > that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
> > could have become an full initiate."
> > 
> > This was quoted in the post to which you were
> > replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
> > decided she had said exactly the opposite?
> > 
> > > --he would not be  
> > > able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition.
> > 
> > > Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the 
> > > tradition.
> > 
> > In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has
> > he ever actually made the claim?
> > 
> > > If he didn't  
> > > have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it
> > > nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM
> > > was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say
> > > that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where
> > > TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics.
> > 
> > But not from MMY himself.
> > 
> >  But essentially one is left to  
> > > conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- 
> > > telling going on from Mr. Varma.
> > 
> > Such as?
> > 
> > > I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added
> > > to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his
> > > guru-bhais.
> > 
> > This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner
> > of yoga?
> >
> As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later
> affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: 
> 
> The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha
> to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an
> israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a
> mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his
> vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold,
> that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200
> western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay,
> I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which
> in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully
> intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can
> shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have
> experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a
> transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He
> wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used
> for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that
> wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means,
> especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine
> poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically
> doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and
> all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev
> would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you
> are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of
> course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could
> have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the
> kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and
> there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw.
> any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he
> didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely
> dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just
> dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari?
> I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant.
>
Who said anything about GD "dumping" MMY.  Why is it impossible to
have a rational discussion with a tmo devotee???  There's a world of
difference between the assertion that mmy is not the formal successor
to GD's tradition and saying GD dumped him.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Peter]

Rick, would you consider banning people from FFL who
continue to denigrate others, perpetuate these
mindless personal arguments and just waste everybody's
time with these very personal posts. Individually,
when these posters stay on task, they can have some
pretty interesting posts, but this continual childish
bickering is absurd. Ban them for a month. Maybe that
will straighten them out ala Paris Hilton
 
--- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Judy wrote:
> > > I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
> > > future posts here when referring to you, 
> > > secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
> > > sional editor, after all) have declared that
> > > the use of this term is not critical.
> > >
> Barry wrote: 
> > Or perhaps, in light of the unprovoked attack
> > you *started* this short week (for you, at 
> > least...you only have one post left) with, 
> > I should refer to you as "the pigot."
> > 
> > :-)
> >
> So, it is all about Judy.
>  
> > I'm making this post while you've still got one
> > post left, in case you want to get the inevitable
> > response out of your system before you take 
> > another "long weekend." That way you won't have
> > to carry your anger around with you all weekend 
> > like you obviously did *last* weekend.
> > 
> > Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
> > had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
> > slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
> > grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
> > I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
> > going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
> > hominem here because you've been "attacked."
> > 
> > You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
> > didn't have to. 
> > 
> > And you don't have to next week, either. During
> > the time you're sittin' in the penalty box this
> > weekend (whether you're really away for a long
> > weekend or just pretending to be to cover the
> > fact that you blew out of FFL so quickly the 
> > last few weeks), I'm not going to make even one
> > post critical of you. I'll try my best not to
> > make even one post critical of anyone else here,
> > or of TM and Maharishi (although you know the 
> > latter is tough because they provide so many 
> > *openings* for critical remarks).
> > 
> > So when you come back next Saturday, or Sunday,
> > or Monday, or whenever you come back, there will
> > have been no posts from me "attacking" you. If
> > you make a post attacking *me* -- personally, I
> > mean, not my ideas -- then it will be clear to 
> > everyone on this forum "who started it."
> > 
> > I have *no problem* with you taking to task any
> > of the *ideas* may present in any of my posts.
> > Go to town. Rip them a new asshole...Googlebomb
> > them back to the Stone Age. That's kosher. But
> > the moment you segue from taking on the ideas
> > to taking on *me* -- making personal ad hominem
> > attacks against me -- then you have pretty much
> > established *yourself* as the attacker in this
> > scenario.
> > 
> > This is Yet Another Opportunity to clean up *your*
> > act, Judy. Curtis has urged you to stick to
> counter-
> > ing or criticizing the *ideas*, not the person. So
> > have a great number of other posters here. And yet
> > you continue to attack *the person*. 
> > 
> > Everyone here knows the difference between attack-
> > ing someone's ideas and attacking the person. So
> if
> > you resort to the latter next week, you have blown
> > your victim act forever.
> > 
> > But this post *can* be legitimately perceived as
> > an attack, so you have a free ride when responding
> > to it. Go to town...and feel free to use ad
> hominem
> > all you want. 
> > 
> > But if you do it next week, don't ever try to cry,
> > "Victim" again, eh pigot?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> 
> 



   

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware 
protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> > What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since  
> > Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> > her  direct experience being in that living tradition
> 
> Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
> *could* have been:
> 
> "He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
> is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
> that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
> could have become an full initiate."
> 
> This was quoted in the post to which you were
> replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
> decided she had said exactly the opposite?
> 
> > --he would not be  
> > able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition.
> 
> > Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the 
> > tradition.
> 
> In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has
> he ever actually made the claim?
> 
> > If he didn't  
> > have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it
> > nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM
> > was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say
> > that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where
> > TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics.
> 
> But not from MMY himself.
> 
>  But essentially one is left to  
> > conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- 
> > telling going on from Mr. Varma.
> 
> Such as?
> 
> > I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added
> > to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his
> > guru-bhais.
> 
> This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner
> of yoga?
>
As she also mentioned the Naga Baba traditions - which are later
affiliates of the Dasanami and indicated she is part of it: 

The contact i had to the Avahan Akhada,where also giving mantra diksha
to ordinary western women who didn't even ask for it. my friend, an
israeli woman said she received quite a long mantra, unasked, by a
mahant of the Avahan Akhada, after she spend coniderable time in his
vicinty. They are really trying o initiate people into their fold,
that is making you a sannyasi. In Ujjain there where at least 200
western sadhus alne with the Juna Akhada. But my point is this: Okay,
I admit that there are certain initiations that are kept secret, which
in a sannyasi tradition you will get only after you are fully
intitiated, that is, you are a sadhu. But for me a great master can
shape the subtle body of a disciple by mere proximity. I have
experienced this myself. If a master is great, he can simply give a
transmission without words, if he feels a student is deserving. He
wouldn't break a vow in this. While there are words only to be used
for certain iniiates, this doesn't mean that the essence of that
wisdom of a master couldn't be transmitted through other means,
especially if this student has shown great dedication. Just imagine
poor student Mahesh running around in the Ashram for GD, basically
doing everything, organizing the procession for him at the Kumbh and
all other places, but when it comes to the high teaching, Guru Dev
would have to say - according to Swami Ganga: Sorry not for you, you
are a mere Brahmachari, and you will always be in this order. Of
course if MMY would have been intent of becoming a Swami, he could
have simply done the next best thing and leave GD, run off at the
kumbh or in Haridwar to any other sadhu and ask for initiation and
there wouldn't have been a problem, just like Swami G. did, or btw.
any one of us could do with success if you are o willing. But he
didn't do it because GD was his master, and he was completely
dedicated to him, served him for 13 years etc. So you think GD just
dumped him, saying: you are not a Brahmin, you are only a Brahmachari?
I find this logic ridiculous and even arrogant. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy today:
> > > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > > > "Apocalypto," you see).
> 
> Judy a few months ago (stuff in brackets in the 
> 2nd paragraph and all of the Subject title and 
> final paragraph:
> > > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > > > 
> > > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > > > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > > > bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> > > > 
> > > > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > > > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > > > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > > > purported superiority of Christianity.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > > how many people would agree with her.
> > 
> > Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> > 
> > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> > 
> > Obviously *not* "critical opinion."
> 
> Thank you for redefining "critical opinion" 
> for us, Judy. 
> 
> I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
> future posts here when referring to you, 
> secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
> sional editor, after all) have declared that
> the use of this term is not critical.

Actually, Barry, I'm not a film. Neither is
Mel Gibson.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Safari now available windows

[Bhairitu]

And Safari has some security issues:
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9728500-7.html

I highly doubt that Apple puts as much headcount nor does Microsoft as
the headcount that has worked on Firefox.  They're fighting a losing
game.  I would suggest that Linux distros have far more head count at
least for the core than even Microsoft can provide.  In the end I
predict Linux will win the battle.

Vaj wrote:
> So you've tried it?
>
> Is it really faster that IE?
>
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:41 AM, bob_brigante wrote:
>
>> Looks like a better browser than IE7, but does not support Yahoo's
>> newest mail, so I have to use both IE7 and Safari:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/technology/12apple.html
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Richard J. Williams]

Judy wrote:
> > I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
> > future posts here when referring to you, 
> > secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
> > sional editor, after all) have declared that
> > the use of this term is not critical.
> >
Barry wrote: 
> Or perhaps, in light of the unprovoked attack
> you *started* this short week (for you, at 
> least...you only have one post left) with, 
> I should refer to you as "the pigot."
> 
> :-)
>
So, it is all about Judy.
 
> I'm making this post while you've still got one
> post left, in case you want to get the inevitable
> response out of your system before you take 
> another "long weekend." That way you won't have
> to carry your anger around with you all weekend 
> like you obviously did *last* weekend.
> 
> Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
> had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
> slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
> grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
> I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
> going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
> hominem here because you've been "attacked."
> 
> You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
> didn't have to. 
> 
> And you don't have to next week, either. During
> the time you're sittin' in the penalty box this
> weekend (whether you're really away for a long
> weekend or just pretending to be to cover the
> fact that you blew out of FFL so quickly the 
> last few weeks), I'm not going to make even one
> post critical of you. I'll try my best not to
> make even one post critical of anyone else here,
> or of TM and Maharishi (although you know the 
> latter is tough because they provide so many 
> *openings* for critical remarks).
> 
> So when you come back next Saturday, or Sunday,
> or Monday, or whenever you come back, there will
> have been no posts from me "attacking" you. If
> you make a post attacking *me* -- personally, I
> mean, not my ideas -- then it will be clear to 
> everyone on this forum "who started it."
> 
> I have *no problem* with you taking to task any
> of the *ideas* may present in any of my posts.
> Go to town. Rip them a new asshole...Googlebomb
> them back to the Stone Age. That's kosher. But
> the moment you segue from taking on the ideas
> to taking on *me* -- making personal ad hominem
> attacks against me -- then you have pretty much
> established *yourself* as the attacker in this
> scenario.
> 
> This is Yet Another Opportunity to clean up *your*
> act, Judy. Curtis has urged you to stick to counter-
> ing or criticizing the *ideas*, not the person. So
> have a great number of other posters here. And yet
> you continue to attack *the person*. 
> 
> Everyone here knows the difference between attack-
> ing someone's ideas and attacking the person. So if
> you resort to the latter next week, you have blown
> your victim act forever.
> 
> But this post *can* be legitimately perceived as
> an attack, so you have a free ride when responding
> to it. Go to town...and feel free to use ad hominem
> all you want. 
> 
> But if you do it next week, don't ever try to cry,
> "Victim" again, eh pigot?
>

[FairfieldLife] Naagaarjuna's noes

[cardemaister]

http://nanyar.googlepages.com/nagarjuna%27snoes

The Eight Negations

anirodham anutpâdam anucchedam aúâúvatam
anekârtham anânârtham anirgamam anâgamam 
(a-nirodham an-utpaadam an-ucchedam a-shaashvatam
an-eka-[a?]artham a-naanaa-[a?]artham[?] a-nirgamam an-aagamam)


| no dissolution - no production | no destruction - no eternity 
|   | no unity - no manifoldness | no 
going out - no coming in |

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy:
> > > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > > > "Apocalypto," you see).
> 
> Judy a few months ago (stuff in brackets in the 
> 2nd paragraph and all of the Subject title and 
> final paragraph:
> > > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > > > 
> > > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > > > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > > > bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> > > > 
> > > > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > > > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > > > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > > > purported superiority of Christianity.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > > how many people would agree with her.
> > 
> > Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> > 
> > > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> > 
> > Obviously *not* "critical opinion."
> 
> Thank you for redefining "critical opinion" 
> for us, Judy. 
> 
> I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
> future posts here when referring to you, 
> secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
> sional editor, after all) have declared that
> the use of this term is not critical.

Or perhaps, in light of the unprovoked attack
you *started* this short week (for you, at 
least...you only have one post left) with, 
I should refer to you as "the pigot."

:-)

I'm making this post while you've still got one
post left, in case you want to get the inevitable
response out of your system before you take 
another "long weekend." That way you won't have
to carry your anger around with you all weekend 
like you obviously did *last* weekend.

Within two hours of your arrival back on FFF, you
had made one post calling Vaj a liar, and another
slamming me by bringing up a three-year-old 
grudge that you're obviously still fuming over.
I'm pointing it out because sooner or later you're
going to trot out the line that you resort to ad
hominem here because you've been "attacked."

You *weren't* attacked. *You* attacked. And you 
didn't have to. 

And you don't have to next week, either. During
the time you're sittin' in the penalty box this
weekend (whether you're really away for a long
weekend or just pretending to be to cover the
fact that you blew out of FFL so quickly the 
last few weeks), I'm not going to make even one
post critical of you. I'll try my best not to
make even one post critical of anyone else here,
or of TM and Maharishi (although you know the 
latter is tough because they provide so many 
*openings* for critical remarks).

So when you come back next Saturday, or Sunday,
or Monday, or whenever you come back, there will
have been no posts from me "attacking" you. If
you make a post attacking *me* -- personally, I
mean, not my ideas -- then it will be clear to 
everyone on this forum "who started it."

I have *no problem* with you taking to task any
of the *ideas* may present in any of my posts.
Go to town. Rip them a new asshole...Googlebomb
them back to the Stone Age. That's kosher. But
the moment you segue from taking on the ideas
to taking on *me* -- making personal ad hominem
attacks against me -- then you have pretty much
established *yourself* as the attacker in this
scenario.

This is Yet Another Opportunity to clean up *your*
act, Judy. Curtis has urged you to stick to counter-
ing or criticizing the *ideas*, not the person. So
have a great number of other posters here. And yet
you continue to attack *the person*. 

Everyone here knows the difference between attack-
ing someone's ideas and attacking the person. So if
you resort to the latter next week, you have blown
your victim act forever.

But this post *can* be legitimately perceived as
an attack, so you have a free ride when responding
to it. Go to town...and feel free to use ad hominem
all you want. 

But if you do it next week, don't ever try to cry,
"Victim" again, eh pigot?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Unified Field Theory Part II

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie"
>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I figured out the unified field theory. It works like this. 
> > > > > The universe that you see is a creation of your own 
> > > > > consciousness, you created it, everything out there. 
> > > > 
> > > > What happens when you die?  Does that mean that the universe 
> > > > also dissolves?
> > > 
> > > No, *your* universe doesn't dissolve because you're mind stuff 
> > > that created it doesn't die but is transmitted to another body. 
> > > You wake up and continue in your universe. 
> > 
> > Your reasoning might have some flaw.  To tell you the truth, 
> > I'm not omnipotent. I don't know how to create a universe 
> > with all the various forces that you mentioned.
> > 
> > Also, I don't know how to transmigrate to another body after 
> > I die either. However, I do hope that I have a better after 
> > life, rather than nothingness or oblivion.
> > 
> > My gut feel is that the universe as it is now will continue 
> > even if I die.
> 
> And a good thing for the rest of us, too.  :-)
> 
> But wouldn't the alternative make a *great* Twilight
> Zone episode? There's this crazy street person who
> preaches in Central Park, saying that he created the
> universe, and that when he dies it will vanish. He's
> attracted quite a crowd, all of whom are laughing at
> him and throwing tomatoes and all those things that
> crowds do when they encounter someone they can look
> down on.
> 
> The crazy guy keeps preaching, trying to convince them
> of the truth of the self-created universe, when some-
> one in the crowd throws a rock instead of a tomato.
> It hits him on the forehead and he slumps to the ground.
> As he falls to the ground, a few people rush up to give 
> aid, but it's too late. They can't help, but they get
> to hear his last words, "I *told* you so," and then
> he dies.
> 
> The camera pans from the faces of the onlookers watching
> him die to those same faces looking up and seeing the
> universe starting to dissolve all around them. Zoom in
> to the face of a little old lady, in New York for the day
> from Jersey, watching the buildings around Central Park 
> dissolve into nothingness, saying, "Shit. And I never 
> got to see the Sopranos, let alone Apocalypto."
> 
> Fade to black.

Barry,

That was good!  Touche.  Your narrative reminds me of a technique 
used by Alduos Huxley in one of his books.  I forget the name of it.  
By the way, I did not see the ending of the Sopranos, although I read 
about it in the newspaper.  However, I did see Apocalypto.






> :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is
> - and if you are a murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect
> and just be what you are.

Personally, I find Balsekar's perspective refreshing. While I haven't
studied him in depth, what I've read about him online struck me as
having a mahavakya-like quality in pointing out that even the most
extreme of polarities are wholeness and perfect as they are, even as
the ego-mind continues in its quest to divide and separate, which is
also wholeness and perfect as it is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

Judy today:
> > > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > > "Apocalypto," you see).

Judy a few months ago (stuff in brackets in the 
2nd paragraph and all of the Subject title and 
final paragraph:
> > > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > > 
> > > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > > bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> > > 
> > > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > > purported superiority of Christianity.
> > 
> > I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > how many people would agree with her.
> 
> Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> 
> > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> 
> Obviously *not* "critical opinion."

Thank you for redefining "critical opinion" 
for us, Judy. 

I look forward to using the term "bigot" in
future posts here when referring to you, 
secure in the knowledge that you (a profes-
sional editor, after all) have declared that
the use of this term is not critical.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Don't ask, don't tell

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 6/12/07 10:23:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are  
gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction,gay and lesbian s
Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think  
by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of  
doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data  
that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be  
changed." 



This person misses the point. The idea is you set off the bomb and drop in  
buckets of paint and yards of material and then get them while they are  
decorating.



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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:05 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:06 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting NLP story.
> > >
> > > One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a
> > > technique which actually projects habitual subtle and
> > > super-subtle
> > > thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans
> > > external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking
> > > reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that
> > > caused
> > > the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the
> > > thought
> > > patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as
> > > real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of
> > > time.
> >
> > Sounds like the Bardo. :-)
>
> Felt like it too: the visions were preceded by deafening sound
> and blinding light I felt for sure would tear me apart.

And, judging from your description above, there's
the same lesson to be learned. No "me," no "me"
to be torn apart. :-)


Eventually, that conclusion is reached simply because the root  
luminosity is so stable. If you keep any tension going through  
holding onto a subject-object idea, you just stay there. The odd  
thing about this style of samadhi is the characteristics of  
simultaneity are readily apparent. I would simultaneously have the  
experience of my body and my breath spontaneously being held in  
kumbhaka, the luminosity and the process of the arising of creation  
in a non-linear fashion. It's really quite difficult to describe in  
linear words because it did not happen in a linear way, it was all  
simultaneous (but separate at the same time). After that was  
intuitively understood, you realized all you needed to do was "die".

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:34 AM, authfriend wrote:


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

> What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since
> Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> her direct experience being in that living tradition

Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
*could* have been:

"He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
could have become an full initiate."

This was quoted in the post to which you were
replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
decided she had said exactly the opposite?



It depends on how you read it. Keep in mind this is casual speech  
which already contains some casual errors.


I read "He most certainly could have become an full initiate." as "He  
most certainly could have become an full initiate if he had wanted  
to" or "if he was a brahmin." Furthermore, since he wears white, it's  
an indication he was not initiated into sannyasi. That's unlikely  
(vows of sannyasi)  because he was not a brahmin...


Perhaps Swami G could clarify so we'd be certain.

However to corroborate this, the email also said: "It is not normal  
for a Guru to entrust the innermost

knowledge to a secretary."

Also, the statement "He may claim to be a part of these traditions  
but no way is he initiated into it." seems to support what I'm  
seeing. Also the title "Giri" or "Saraswati" is not in his name. In  
fact the title he did add, apparently on his own, "yogi", is known to  
be fallacious. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't ask, don't tell

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'
>  
> Hank Plante
> Reporting
> 
> (CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks 
> military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military 
> proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn 
> enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested 
> in sex than fighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:06 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting NLP story.
> > >
> > > One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a
> > > technique which actually projects habitual subtle and 
> > > super-subtle
> > > thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans
> > > external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking
> > > reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that 
> > > caused
> > > the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the 
> > > thought
> > > patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as
> > > real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of 
> > > time.
> >
> > Sounds like the Bardo. :-)
> 
> Felt like it too: the visions were preceded by deafening sound   
> and blinding light I felt for sure would tear me apart.

And, judging from your description above, there's 
the same lesson to be learned. No "me," no "me"
to be torn apart.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Loving what is.

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> 
> My reading of Byron Katie is that she is primarily focussed on the
> message, and analysis in life situations, of "loving what is", not
> "loving what IS" . 

I'm currently finding there is no difference. Love what is, and we 
find is IS. Seeing a difference between is and IS, is maintaining a 
false duality, believing our stories -- withholding our unconditional 
Love for certain experiences only, terming those IS, and relegating 
the rest to the is-bin. Suffering. More of me to Love! :-)

>And that "loving what is" is not a prescription to
> passively sit back and accept what is, do nothing, and sigh "Isn't
> this the most PERFECT, most adorable situation!"

Yes, I am not advocating passive co-dependency and denial; I am not 
advocating *any* particular action or non-action -- just Inquiry. 
When we actually inquire into and take responsibility for our own 
stories, suffering disappears, the Self remembers the Self, and 
action -- whatever it may be -- is fearless, dynamic, loving, and 
impeccable. 

> As an example, when a woman says her husband "appears to act like a
> dickhead sometimes, but really is a good man, and I think I can 
change
> him (though tht hasn't worked out over the past 20 years, and I 
think
>  its a lot my fault, and why do I get stuck with a dickhead,  ..." 
BK
> stops the woman dead in her tracks and forces herto accept the fact
> that her husband is a dickhead. That there is not getting around 
it. 

Yes, the "appears to act like a dickhead, but really is a good man, 
and I think I can change him" is probably the quintessence of denial -
- NOT loving what IS! We can tell if it's a story meriting further 
inquiry by checking our bodymind -- how do we feel when we think this 
thought, and so on. Does it hurt? Then it's not true. Closer inquiry 
may show he IS a dickhead, has been for 20 years, and he's not 
changing. That's a relief -- something I can't fix, and don't have to 
take responsibility for! One step closer to the Truth. 

Still closer inquiry, a turn-around or three, will show us we *don't 
know* what he is -- that *I* am a dickhead, and *I* am not changing! 
I haven't been loving to mySelf by staying in this situation and 
perpetuating this story. All of a sudden, the disempowerment stops -- 
no longer is *he* responsible for my happinesss; *I* am! At this 
point, that story's over, and the actors are free to do the next 
obvious thing. Sometimes that may be to leave; at other times 
the "other" actor *does* appear to change at that point, in automatic 
reflection of our new Understanding -- either way, we find ourselves 
enjoying more Love, more freedom, more clarity, more bliss. 

> Accepting it, loving it, is a mechanism to stop the pity and blame
> game. But it doesn't at all mean, per BK, to be resigned to living
> with the dickhead or to see it as  "perfect". She says, in my 
reading,
> that accepting, without qualification, that the womans husband is a
> dickhead is the first step in moving on with her life. To accept he 
is
> not going to change, he has his nature, and  she has the option to
> leave him. That indeed is exactly what BK did with her first
> husband.She didn't sigh an say, "my oh my, isn't this just PERFECT."

Yes; again, genuine inquiry is not a prop for non-action and 
tolerance of the status quo -- it will inevitably result in *change* 
of the status quo to reflect our new Understanding. That's the whole 
point! :-)
 
> This is a similar theme, roughly parallel, to the discussion Jim 
and I
> had about the value in not passively accepting paradoxes.
> 
> I am wondering Rory, if you are seeing BK saying "love what IS" as
> your view of what BK SHOULD be saying, and not accpeting and loving
> what she actually is saying (per my reading -- and perhaps I need to
> re-read her).

I am finding the (now automatic) practice to be immensely useful in 
dissolving suffering and quickly resolving my stories back into 
primordial radiance. YMMV :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not interested.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> > > > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> > > > > it (and then deleted the post)?
> > > > 
> > > > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
> > > > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
> > > > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
> > > > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
> > > > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
> > > > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
> > > > the distribution copy of the film.
> > > > 
> > > > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
> > > > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
> > > > with enlightenment, too?  :-)
> > > 
> > > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > > "Apocalypto," you see).
> > 
> > From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a 
> > repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com,
> > but which contained the following lines, *all* 
> > written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never 
> > seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, 
> > the text in brackets in the second paragraph 
> > was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph
> > was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> > of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> > how many people would agree with her.
> 
> Of course they aren't "critical opinion."
> 
> > As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> > ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> > to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"
> 
> Obviously *not* "critical opinion."
> 
> > (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his 
> > film
> 
> Not slander, either.
> 
>  *that she never saw) was warrented, see 
> > above. Judy's "Not interested." 
> > 
> > Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> > 
> > ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> > history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> > ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> > it would be because of European contact. But 
> > in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> > hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> > the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> > to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> > bigotry--JS] is devastating.





Gee, that's not how I saw it.

SPOILER

The arrival of the Europeans happens in, literally, the last 30 
seconds of the movie.  I saw the European arrival as the Apocalyse 
suggested by the title of the movie, not some sort of coming of 
sanity and paternalism.  This is the author projecting his own 
opinions onto Gibson's work probably because he thinks Gibson is 
sending some sort of Christian message.

But, of course, it could very well be that Gibson also feels it is 
the Europeans who are bringing the Apocalyse to the Mayans.  Gibson's 
Christian beliefs are so whacky and out of the mainstream that he 
probably feels -- as most fanatics do -- that any deviation from his 
strict interpretations of scripture leads to bad consequences and, 
certainly, that applies to all Christians (except for a select few) 
that came before him...including the Spaniards who landed on the 
shores of Mexico. Anyone that has seen the film knows his heart is 
squarely with the Mayans...indeed, he probably LOVES all the torture 
stuff and regards it not as evidence of savagery and low-evolution 
but as high-evolution and a necessary passage to mankind.

Remember how quick people were to label Gibson a "Conservative" after 
his anti-semitic outburst when he was arrested for DUI.  Solely 
because of his "Christian" reputation as a result of the 
whole "Passion of the Christ" controversy, everyone assumed he was 
some sort of right-wing pro-Bush supporter.

Of course, it turned out that Gibson is pretty much left-wing on most 
things political, kinda like the Catholic pro-life Martin Sheen (who 
makes Jerry Falwell look like Gloria Steinem when it comes to the 
abortion issue).  Remember that Gibson is very prominent as an 
alternative fuel car user in the film "Who killed the Electric Car?", 
not exactly a right-wing Republican kind of thing to do.

And when Gibson was 13 his father moved his clan to Australia 
precisely because he didn't want any of his sons to be drafted into 
the U.S. Army and to go to Vietnam.

Curiously, the criticisms of Gibson's politics stopped abruptly once 
journalists and pundits rea

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[authfriend]

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

> What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since  
> Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from
> her  direct experience being in that living tradition

Au contraire, she claimed (incorrectly) that he
*could* have been:

"He may claim to be a part of these traditions but no way
is he initiated into it. And once again let it be reminded
that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most certainly
could have become an full initiate."

This was quoted in the post to which you were
replying, Vaj. Wonder how you missed it and
decided she had said exactly the opposite?

> --he would not be  
> able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition.

> Nonetheless he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the 
> tradition.

In your *opinion* that is how he acts. But has
he ever actually made the claim?

> If he didn't  
> have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it
> nor could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM
> was received from SBS is patently false. This is not to say
> that Mahesh or the TMO has not him-hawed around how and where
> TM came from: one hears different stories as to specifics.

But not from MMY himself.

 But essentially one is left to  
> conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- 
> telling going on from Mr. Varma.

Such as?

> I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added
> to his name is also claimed to be false by one of his
> guru-bhais.

This anonymous person claims MMY is not a practitioner
of yoga?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[shempmcgurk]

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


[snip]

> > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > "Apocalypto," you see).
> 
> From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a 
> repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com,
> but which contained the following lines, *all* 
> written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never 
> seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, 
> the text in brackets in the second paragraph 
> was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph
> was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> how many people would agree with her. 

[snip]

Something quite extraordinary about "Apocalypto": it received 3.9 
stars from users on its Netflix page.  And its from a more than amply-
sized sample: over 67,000 ratings.  It's quite rare to see anything 
over 3.2 stars on Netflix once you get over 10,000 users rating a 
movie.  Only a few established classics get over 4 stars.

To give you an idea how high a rating this is, "Citizen Kane" got 3.9 
stars and "The Graduate" also got 3.9 stars.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[curtisdeltablues]

I'm not sure I fully grasp what this involves.  It sounds very
interesting.  In NLP we used something that may have a little to do
with what you are talking about.  It concerned practicing your
perceptual position.  You would first run a memory as a movie,
dissociated from it.  Then you would take on the perceptual position
of the other person in the scene so you could gain some better
perspective of how they had experienced it. Then you might associate
into your own body to feel the feelings. It was used as a treatment
for abuse, but is just as effective for any unpleasant memory.  It
allowed you to make changes in how you perceived your own history.

All these techniques take some practice.  I think my experiences with
TM helped me feel comfortable in an internal world for extended
periods.  I would probably benefit from reviewing which of these
techniques would help me today with my current life goals.  I should
spend some trance time "becoming" Robert Johnson.  I would have to be
careful not to end up banging a club owner's wife and getting poisoned
though!  There are many song writing applications that I have used in
the past but need to spend more time doing for my next CD.

These days I am so outward directed that I tend to only use these
techniques the way I fix my car, when stuff starts rattling around so
I have to pay attention.  I should take some time to be more creative
in using them for more positive goals rather then to fix things.  Now
with Summer here, and the ladies walking by me on the waterfront
wearing sun dresses, I pretty much won't close my eyes till Winter!




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting NLP story.
> 
> One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a  
> technique which actually projects habitual subtle and super-subtle  
> thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans  
> external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking  
> reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that caused  
> the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the thought  
> patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as  
> real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of time.  
> One of the warnings of undergoing this type of retreat was that if  
> you could not rest the mind in it's natural state, you could  
> potentially become trapped in such states for days, weeks or years.  
> The interesting thing was, if you fell for some juicy thought-loop  
> and then eventually came out of it, you could always examine your  
> mind and it would present the source of the pattern. It was often  
> some subtle belief you were 'running in your mind-RAM' unconsciously.  
> Once recognition dawned though, you were free.
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:19 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for posting this Vaj.
> >
> > One interesting area of Neuro linguistic Programming was something
> > they call "sub-modalities". These are all the internal distinctions
> > we make to tell one type of thought or memory from another. We code
> > thoughts with internal visual cues like image qualities,
> > brightness,size, color vividness and our internal dialog with
> > qualities like volume, tone and speed. These qualities can be
> > manipulated once you isolate them. We did an exercise on my
> > practitioner's training where we tried to uncover what internal cues
> > we use to tell a real memory from a made-up story. The purpose was to
> > build some convincing histories of success for ourselves when we were
> > doing something new to build confidence. It was pretty obvious what
> > internal qualities we used to internally code true experiences from
> > fiction. We attempted to make the made up story as much like the true
> > ones as we could. I got to the point where I could feel emotional
> > changes from the false memories once I had altered them like the real
> > ones. It never got confusing which was real, probably because there
> > were other cues I was missing, but it served the purpose of shifting
> > emotional states.
> >
> > One interesting exercise we did with sub modalities was to locate
> > negative subconscious internal tapes that we were running without
> > knowing it. The usual stuff like "You aren't good at..." or "You
> > never (always)..." Often times, when analyzed, it would turn out to
> > be in the voice of a loved one who had started the self-doubt process
> > and then it ran by itself below conscious attention. We would then
> > take the phrase and use a sped-up cartoon voice and run it that way
> > until the phrase would lose all of its emotional charge.
> >
> > I am doubtful about a lot of claims in NLP for miraculous cures
> > quickly, but I did find these insights very useful. Now I am pretty
> > conscious of the specific qualities of internal dialog I have with
> > myself and the kind of pictures I am using that motivate my emotions.
> > It has been 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Not interested.
> > > > 
> > > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> > > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> > > > it (and then deleted the post)?
> > > 
> > > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
> > > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
> > > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
> > > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
> > > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
> > > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
> > > the distribution copy of the film.
> > > 
> > > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
> > > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
> > > with enlightenment, too?  :-)
> > 
> > Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> > opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> > done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> > "Apocalypto," you see).
> 
> From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a 
> repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com,
> but which contained the following lines, *all* 
> written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never 
> seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, 
> the text in brackets in the second paragraph 
> was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph
> was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any
> of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
> how many people would agree with her.

Of course they aren't "critical opinion."

> As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
> ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
> to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion"

Obviously *not* "critical opinion."

> (not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his 
> film

Not slander, either.

 *that she never saw) was warrented, see 
> above. Judy's "Not interested." 
> 
> Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot
> 
> ...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
> history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
> ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
> it would be because of European contact. But 
> in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
> hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
> the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
> to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
> bigotry--JS] is devastating.
> 
> To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> purported superiority of Christianity.
> 
> I saw Apocalypto, and feel that the author who
> wrote the article was WAY off-base, and had
> seen the film through his own "I'm a scholar
> and I don't get no respect and this pissant 
> director is famous and more handsome than I
> am"-colored glasses, missing what was really 
> onscreen. Several people on this forum who have 
> seen the film agree with me.

And a substantial number of scholars who know
something about Maya history agree with the
person I quoted. See the compendium of quotes
from these scholars that I posted awhile back.

Several of them (including the Salon writer),
by the way, *did* express "critical opinion"
of the film. These opinions were uniformly
positive, praising Gibson's great skill and
artistry as a filmmaker.

 Judy's still never 
> seen the film, and is even claiming that she has 
> "never expressed a critical opinion about it."

Right, I never have.

> Go figure, eh? I guess *this* is her definition 
> of the "intellectual honesty" that she accuses 
> so many of us of *not* having.

What's intellectually dishonest is to claim
I was expressing "critical opinion" of the film.

> At least I saw "Inland Empire."

*After* you had proclaimed it to be "stupid"
(and then deleted the post).

 I think it was
> stupid. That doesn't mean that everyone will
> think it was stupid. Many French critics liked
> it. Then again, the French like Jerry Lewis. But
> at least the French critics and I saw the films
> in question. Judy is so confident that she's 
> "right" that doing that is unnecessary.

The only way I wouldn't be "right" is if the
various scholars who have pointed out the film's
historical inaccuracies were lying about them.

> Interesting, eh?

More than you suspect.

[FairfieldLife] Don't ask, don't tell

[shempmcgurk]

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'
 
Hank Plante
Reporting

(CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks 
military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal 
to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers 
into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders 
had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-
called "Gay Bomb."

Related Content
 Gen. Pace Regrets Gay Remark; Doesn't Apologize
 Slideshow: Gay Celebrities
 Visit The CBS 5 Water Cooler

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom 
of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air 
Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the 
proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal 
example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also 
caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to 
develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that 
contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, 
and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became 
irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing 
the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in 
the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue 
of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, 
the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force 
in 1994.

"The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching 
and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women 
in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay 
bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the 
military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has 
acknowledged.

"The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention 
if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, 
the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to 
promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the 
highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not 
currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was 
abandoned.

Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the 
notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the 
same time.

"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are 
gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff 
Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think 
by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of 
doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data 
that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be 
changed." 

(© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:06 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting NLP story.
>
> One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a
> technique which actually projects habitual subtle and super-subtle
> thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans
> external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking
> reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that caused
> the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the thought
> patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as
> real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of time.

Sounds like the Bardo. :-)



Felt like it too: the visions were preceded by deafening sound and  
blinding light I felt for sure would tear me apart. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:47 AM, t3rinity wrote:


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

Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing
around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami
System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different
for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
addressing this.

IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have
wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of
qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he
was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because
outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that
up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must
say, that I don't believe it.



What I was getting from Ron and Swami G's comments was that since  
Mahesh could not be initiated as a swami--as Sw. G sees it from her  
direct experience being in that living tradition--he would not be  
able to be initiated into the secrets of the tradition. Nonetheless  
he acts as if he was initated by SBS into the tradition. If he didn't  
have the inside scoop on the tradition, he couldn't teach it nor  
could he be a line-holder. Therefore the story that TM was received  
from SBS is patently false. This is not to say that Mahesh or the TMO  
has not him-hawed around how and where TM came from: one hears  
different stories as to specifics. But essentially one is left to  
conclude it's not a lineal transmission and there's some story- 
telling going on from Mr. Varma.


I should further add that the appellation "yogi" added to his name is  
also claimed to be false by one of his guru-bhais.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting NLP story.
> 
> One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a  
> technique which actually projects habitual subtle and super-subtle  
> thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans  
> external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking  
> reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that caused  
> the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the thought  
> patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as  
> real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of time. 

Sounds like the Bardo.  :-)
 
> One of the warnings of undergoing this type of retreat was that if  
> you could not rest the mind in it's natural state, you could  
> potentially become trapped in such states for days, weeks or years.  
> The interesting thing was, if you fell for some juicy thought-loop  
> and then eventually came out of it, you could always examine your  
> mind and it would present the source of the pattern. It was often  
> some subtle belief you were 'running in your mind-RAM' 
> unconsciously.  Once recognition dawned though, you were free.
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:19 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for posting this Vaj.
> >
> > One interesting area of Neuro linguistic Programming was something
> > they call "sub-modalities". These are all the internal distinctions
> > we make to tell one type of thought or memory from another. We code
> > thoughts with internal visual cues like image qualities,
> > brightness,size, color vividness and our internal dialog with
> > qualities like volume, tone and speed. These qualities can be
> > manipulated once you isolate them. We did an exercise on my
> > practitioner's training where we tried to uncover what internal cues
> > we use to tell a real memory from a made-up story. The purpose was to
> > build some convincing histories of success for ourselves when we were
> > doing something new to build confidence. It was pretty obvious what
> > internal qualities we used to internally code true experiences from
> > fiction. We attempted to make the made up story as much like the true
> > ones as we could. I got to the point where I could feel emotional
> > changes from the false memories once I had altered them like the real
> > ones. It never got confusing which was real, probably because there
> > were other cues I was missing, but it served the purpose of shifting
> > emotional states.
> >
> > One interesting exercise we did with sub modalities was to locate
> > negative subconscious internal tapes that we were running without
> > knowing it. The usual stuff like "You aren't good at..." or "You
> > never (always)..." Often times, when analyzed, it would turn out to
> > be in the voice of a loved one who had started the self-doubt process
> > and then it ran by itself below conscious attention. We would then
> > take the phrase and use a sped-up cartoon voice and run it that way
> > until the phrase would lose all of its emotional charge.
> >
> > I am doubtful about a lot of claims in NLP for miraculous cures
> > quickly, but I did find these insights very useful. Now I am pretty
> > conscious of the specific qualities of internal dialog I have with
> > myself and the kind of pictures I am using that motivate my emotions.
> > It has been helpful for me.
> >
> > We also studied trance induction ala Milton Erickson. That was the
> > beginning of my shift in my POV on what I was experiencing in
> > meditation and what my subjective experiences meant.
> >
> > Interesting article!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> > > 
> > > Not interested.
> > > 
> > > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> > > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> > > it (and then deleted the post)?
> > 
> > As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
> > France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
> > guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
> > it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
> > for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
> > so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
> > the distribution copy of the film.
> > 
> > Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
> > ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
> > with enlightenment, too?  :-)
> 
> Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
> opinion about it, either (just as I have not
> done so with either "The Sopranos" or
> "Apocalypto," you see).

>From FFL Message #126122, which was mainly a 
repost of someone else's ideas from Salon.com,
but which contained the following lines, *all* 
written by Judy Stein, who has *still* never 
seen the film. The subject line was Judy's, 
the text in brackets in the second paragraph 
was Judy's, and the full concluding paragraph
was Judy's. I'm sure she doesn't consider any
of them "critical opinion," but I'm not sure 
how many people would agree with her. 

As for the film itself, as an exercise in fair-
ness and "intellectual honesty," or maybe just
to see whether her *obvious* "critical opinion" 
(not to mention slander of Mel Gibson and his 
film *that she never saw) was warrented, see 
above. Judy's "Not interested." 


Subject: Mel Gibson, Christian bigot

...If there were ever an apocalypse in the 
history of the Maya -- and herein lies the 
ultimate demoralizing irony of the movie -- 
it would be because of European contact. But 
in the movie, after two hours of excess, 
hyperbole and hysteria, the Spaniards represent 
the arrival of sanity [i.e., Christianity--JS] 
to the Maya world. The tacit paternalism [and 
bigotry--JS] is devastating.

To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
purported superiority of Christianity.


I saw Apocalypto, and feel that the author who
wrote the article was WAY off-base, and had
seen the film through his own "I'm a scholar
and I don't get no respect and this pissant 
director is famous and more handsome than I
am"-colored glasses, missing what was really 
onscreen. Several people on this forum who have 
seen the film agree with me. Judy's still never 
seen the film, and is even claiming that she has 
"never expressed a critical opinion about it." 

Go figure, eh? I guess *this* is her definition 
of the "intellectual honesty" that she accuses 
so many of us of *not* having.

At least I saw "Inland Empire." I think it was
stupid. That doesn't mean that everyone will
think it was stupid. Many French critics liked
it. Then again, the French like Jerry Lewis. But
at least the French critics and I saw the films
in question. Judy is so confident that she's 
"right" that doing that is unnecessary.

Interesting, eh? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[Vaj]

Interesting NLP story.

One of the meditative processes I've found very valuable was a  
technique which actually projects habitual subtle and super-subtle  
thoughts into three dimensional space, to the extent that, sans  
external testing cues, you could not tell it from from waking  
reality. If you could jump outside of the thought-loops that caused  
the "reality" to manifest, you could be free of it and the thought  
patterns would "self liberate". However, if you accepted them as  
real, you would be stuck there for an indeterminate amount of time.  
One of the warnings of undergoing this type of retreat was that if  
you could not rest the mind in it's natural state, you could  
potentially become trapped in such states for days, weeks or years.  
The interesting thing was, if you fell for some juicy thought-loop  
and then eventually came out of it, you could always examine your  
mind and it would present the source of the pattern. It was often  
some subtle belief you were 'running in your mind-RAM' unconsciously.  
Once recognition dawned though, you were free.


On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:19 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


Thanks for posting this Vaj.

One interesting area of Neuro linguistic Programming was something
they call "sub-modalities". These are all the internal distinctions
we make to tell one type of thought or memory from another. We code
thoughts with internal visual cues like image qualities,
brightness,size, color vividness and our internal dialog with
qualities like volume, tone and speed. These qualities can be
manipulated once you isolate them. We did an exercise on my
practitioner's training where we tried to uncover what internal cues
we use to tell a real memory from a made-up story. The purpose was to
build some convincing histories of success for ourselves when we were
doing something new to build confidence. It was pretty obvious what
internal qualities we used to internally code true experiences from
fiction. We attempted to make the made up story as much like the true
ones as we could. I got to the point where I could feel emotional
changes from the false memories once I had altered them like the real
ones. It never got confusing which was real, probably because there
were other cues I was missing, but it served the purpose of shifting
emotional states.

One interesting exercise we did with sub modalities was to locate
negative subconscious internal tapes that we were running without
knowing it. The usual stuff like "You aren't good at..." or "You
never (always)..." Often times, when analyzed, it would turn out to
be in the voice of a loved one who had started the self-doubt process
and then it ran by itself below conscious attention. We would then
take the phrase and use a sped-up cartoon voice and run it that way
until the phrase would lose all of its emotional charge.

I am doubtful about a lot of claims in NLP for miraculous cures
quickly, but I did find these insights very useful. Now I am pretty
conscious of the specific qualities of internal dialog I have with
myself and the kind of pictures I am using that motivate my emotions.
It has been helpful for me.

We also studied trance induction ala Milton Erickson. That was the
beginning of my shift in my POV on what I was experiencing in
meditation and what my subjective experiences meant.

Interesting article!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[t3rinity]

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

Hi thanks for the quick response. Still I feel that she is tiptoeing
around the points. These points or rather my main point is, that
within the Saraswati Order, as well as two others within the Dasanami
System, only Brahmins can be made Swamis, period. This is different
for Puri and Giri, Bharati and most other. Swami G is simply not
addressing this. 

IOW GD could not even have made MMY a Swami, even if he would have
wanted. Therefore MMY's status as non-Swami does not signify a lack of
qualification. Being close to GD in a visible way, does this mean he
was deprived of the essential teachings or transmissions, because
outdated caste-regulations would prescribe it that way? I leave that
up to everyones judgement, and I cannot say it myself 100%, but I must
say, that I don't believe it.

> Note: I am forwarding  a response from Swami G to the last post. There
> is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short
> for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster,
> and G = Swami G:
> 
> 
> T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a
Guru was 
> appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full 
> Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he 
> was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost 
> knowledge to a secretary. 
>  
> * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully 
> knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one 
> tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another 
> tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email, 
> yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for 
> instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But 
> then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami 
> Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati 
> order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis? 
>  
> G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of
> tradition - 
> ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are
> Bharati/Giri/Puri 
> and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with 
> Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic
> practices and 
> knowledge. 


That may all be, but then the fact remains, that the Saraswati order
does not accept non-Brahmins (not to even think of american women ;-)

> All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically 
> Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated 
> with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. 

And so was Guru Devs Guru, he came from the south. Guru Dev could have
only initiated within the Saraswati order, so he didn't have the
choice of initiating a nonbrahmin desciple within his own order, and
he couldn't initiate anyone into another order than his own. This
whole story, why this is so has to do with the opening of he Shankara
order to nonbrahmins in the medevial ages, and the influence of islam
on Hinduism, when Hindus had to defend their own faith. Originally the
Shankara path was only open to Brahmins. But Brahmins were not allowed
to fight. This issue was solved by alloing other caste-members to
enter the Shankara order, first in a limited way. This is the origin
of the Naga-Babas, who are enjoined to the Dasanami order, but
ususally the members are of lower castes and are looked down on by the
other Dasanami orders. As a result of this development also other
orders accepted non-Brahmins, but as a concession to Brahmins, three
orders were kept free from this development, membership exclusively
reserved for Brahmins. Saraswati is one of them. That they are mostly
coming from the south makes sense, as the muslim influence was there
less, and the south is generally more conservative.

So do i 
> need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage. 

Yes, sure. But then I wonder why you didn't know what I was just
describing above.
>  
> * This would resolve her argument. 
>  
> G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the 
> Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only 
> here but also within this sect in india.  

Just to remind you what the argument is about - that there exists a
formulism within Maharishis order that did not allow him to be a
Sadhu. Instead of accepting that this is something that has to do with
a very restrictive tradition, she makes - unrightfully I think - a
qualifying argument out of it, stating that MMY could not have
received the essence of Gd's teaching. ( I am not objecting that he
was not initiated into all of the sadhus secret teachings, I knoe they
are there and Sadhus are very particular about it)

> * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just 
> employed vs being a student. 
>  
> G he was a Bra

[FairfieldLife] Loving what is.

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is -
> 
> Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we 
> inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions 
> around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. ("I'm 
> better than so-and-so!") we see that after all we have been indulging 
> in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas 
> onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and 
> superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and 
> now find that what had appeared to be "sin" only IS IS, indescribable, 
> radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has 
> always been! 
> 
> Again, we've often found Byron Katie ("Loving what IS") to be very 
> useful in helping the divisive mind to catch up with Us :-)


My reading of Byron Katie is that she is primarily focussed on the
message, and analysis in life situations, of "loving what is", not
"loving what IS" . And that "loving what is" is not a prescription to
passively sit back and accept what is, do nothing, and sigh "Isn't
this the most PERFECT, most adorable situation!"

As an example, when a woman says her husband "appears to act like a
dickhead sometimes, but really is a good man, and I think I can change
him (though tht hasn't worked out over the past 20 years, and I think
 its a lot my fault, and why do I get stuck with a dickhead,  ..." BK
stops the woman dead in her tracks and forces herto accept the fact
that her husband is a dickhead. That there is not getting around it. 

Accepting it, loving it, is a mechanism to stop the pity and blame
game. But it doesn't at all mean, per BK, to be resigned to living
with the dickhead or to see it as  "perfect". She says, in my reading,
that accepting, without qualification, that the womans husband is a
dickhead is the first step in moving on with her life. To accept he is
not going to change, he has his nature, and  she has the option to
leave him. That indeed is exactly what BK did with her first
husband.She didn't sigh an say, "my oh my, isn't this just PERFECT."

This is a similar theme, roughly parallel, to the discussion Jim and I
had about the value in not passively accepting paradoxes.

I am wondering Rory, if you are seeing BK saying "love what IS" as
your view of what BK SHOULD be saying, and not accpeting and loving
what she actually is saying (per my reading -- and perhaps I need to
re-read her).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[authfriend]

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

It was pretty obvious what
> internal qualities we used to internally code true experiences
> from fiction.  We attempted to make the made up story as much
> like the true ones as we could.  I got to the point where I could
> feel emotional changes from the false memories once I had altered 
> them like the real ones.  It never got confusing which was real

What happened with your made-up story about the
claim that Bridey Murphy had lived in medieval
times? How come you couldn't tell that one was
false?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > I've seen over half
> > > of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
> > > a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
> > > final episode, *in addition to* having just read
> > > the interview with the series' creator.
> > 
> > Fine. But I'm not *interested* in seeing the series,
> > any of it. Never was. I *am* interested in the viewer
> > reaction to it, both reviewers and audience members.
> > I can speak knowledgeably about how the viewers have
> > reacted, especially to the ending, because I've read
> > quite a bit of what they've said. 
> 
> As I suggested earlier, exactly like your relationship
> with enlightenment.

Uh, no, nothing like it. 

> > I haven't pretended
> > to be knowledgeable about the series itself.
> 
> Ok, *similar to* your relationship with enlightenment,
> not exactly like it. :-)

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about
enlightenment, either.

> . . .
> 
> > > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> > 
> > Not interested.
> > 
> > Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> > the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> > it (and then deleted the post)?
> 
> As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
> France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
> guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
> it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
> for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
> so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
> the distribution copy of the film.
> 
> Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
> ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
> with enlightenment, too?  :-)

Nope, but I've never expressed a critical
opinion about it, either (just as I have not
done so with either "The Sopranos" or
"Apocalypto," you see).

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > I've seen over half
> > of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
> > a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
> > final episode, *in addition to* having just read
> > the interview with the series' creator.
> 
> Fine. But I'm not *interested* in seeing the series,
> any of it. Never was. I *am* interested in the viewer
> reaction to it, both reviewers and audience members.
> I can speak knowledgeably about how the viewers have
> reacted, especially to the ending, because I've read
> quite a bit of what they've said. 

As I suggested earlier, exactly like your relationship
with enlightenment. 

> I haven't pretended
> to be knowledgeable about the series itself.

Ok, *similar to* your relationship with enlightenment,
not exactly like it. :-)

. . .

> > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)
> 
> Not interested.
> 
> Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
> the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
> it (and then deleted the post)?

As a matter of fact, yes. They showed it here in 
France on satellite because Lynch was one of the 
guests at the recent Cannes festival. Didn't like 
it much, but it *was* much better than his entry 
for the "Chacun son cinema" compilation, which was 
so odd that it appears to have been deleted from 
the distribution copy of the film.

Have *you* seen the film yet, or is your relation-
ship with it...uh...similar to your relationship 
with enlightenment, too?  :-)


"What seems to be the problem?" Frank 
turned back to the three kings who were 
astonished. The first king cleared his 
throat. His shoes were too big and his 
crown was wet and lopsided but neverthe-
less, he began to speak in the most 
meaningful way, "Frank," he began, "Mr. 
Dylan has come out with a new record. 
This record of course features none but 
his own songs and we understand that 
you're the key." 

"That's right," said Frank, "I am." 

"Well then," said the king in a bit of 
excitement, "could you please open it 
up for us?" 

Frank, who all this time had been reclining 
with his eyes closed, suddenly opened them 
both up as wide as a tiger. "And just how 
far would you like to go in?" he asked and 
the three kings all looked at each other. 

"Not too far but just far enough so's we 
can say that we've been there," said the 
first chief. 

"All right," said Frank, "I'll see what I 
can do," and he commenced to doing it.

-- Bob Dylan, from the liner notes to John Wesley Harding

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:14 AM, authfriend wrote:


> It's interesting that clever rationalization and a worldview
> based on self-reinforcing, indoctrinated set of beliefs held in
> place from lack of external exposure can lead to delusions
> which, to the deluded, seem real, convincing and even profoundly
> insightful. Such are the mechanics of true-believership.

LOL!! Vaj, you're getting very good at this
self-satire business. Eventually you may even
win the title of Master of Inadvertent Irony
away from Barry, who has held it firmly for
years.



Nice yak.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess I can offer a little food for thought here. There are no rules
> that say one that is enlightened must keep it secret. I have been
> saying things are direct and to the point here in my path. So, for a
> starter, one can ask Swami G, are you enlightened. The reply is yes.
> 
> From here, one can go into further inquiry as is needed for one to
> feel satisfied that they have the answers they need, should they want
> to further probe how it can be of benefit to have an enlightened Guru
> guilding them one to one.

Yes, I have never been one to keep enlightenment a secret. I am just 
pointing out that there may be much that remains to be done *after* 
enlightenment, including realizing the relative and self-reflective 
nature of all of our stories, of every particle in our awareness. In 
fact, enlightenment or non-enlightenment are really not the issue; 
removing the suffering around believing our stories may be practiced 
through self-inquiry at any time, whether or not we tell 
ourselves/others we're enlightened :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks for posting this Vaj.

One interesting area of Neuro linguistic Programming was something
they call "sub-modalities".  These are all the internal distinctions
we make to tell one type of thought or memory from another.  We code
thoughts with internal visual cues like image qualities,
brightness,size, color vividness and our internal dialog  with
qualities like volume, tone and speed.  These qualities can be
manipulated once you isolate them.  We did an exercise on my
practitioner's training where we tried to uncover what internal cues
we use to tell a real memory from a made-up story.  The purpose was to
build some convincing histories of success for ourselves when we were
doing something new to build confidence.  It was pretty obvious what
internal qualities we used to internally code true experiences from
fiction.  We attempted to make the made up story as much like the true
ones as we could.  I got to the point where I could feel emotional
changes from the false memories once I had altered them like the real
ones.  It never got confusing which was real, probably because there
were other cues I was missing, but it served the purpose of shifting
emotional states.

One interesting exercise we did with sub modalities was to locate
negative subconscious internal tapes that we were running without
knowing it.  The usual stuff like "You aren't good at..." or "You
never (always)..."  Often times, when analyzed, it would turn out to
be in the voice of a loved one who had started the self-doubt process
and then it ran by itself below conscious attention.  We would then
take the phrase and use a sped-up cartoon voice and run it that way
until the phrase would lose all of its emotional charge. 

I am doubtful about a lot of claims in NLP for miraculous cures
quickly, but I did find these insights very useful.  Now I am pretty
conscious of the specific qualities of internal dialog I have with
myself and the kind of pictures I am using that motivate my emotions.
 It has been helpful for me.

We also studied trance induction ala Milton Erickson.  That was the
beginning of my shift in my POV on what I was experiencing in
meditation and what my subjective experiences meant.

Interesting article!








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Rory Goff]

>
>> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is -

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:

> > Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as 
we 
> > inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted 
reactions 
> > around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. 
("I'm 
> > better than so-and-so!") we see that after all we have been 
indulging 
> > in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own 
dramas 
> > onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love 
and 
> > superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here 
and 
> > now find that what had appeared to be "sin" only IS IS, 
indescribable, 
> > radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it 
has 
> > always been! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> There may be some self righteousness and feeling of "I'm better 
than"
> behind perceptions of false gurus and manipulators of power, and 
those
> feelings should be addressed which may alter the subtle feelings
> around those perceptions and how they're expressed, but I don't 
think
> that spiritual growth towards unity eliminates the ability to makes
> those distinctions between truth and falsehood, in fact it seems to 
me
>  that that ability to discriminate becomes clearer.  IE I dont think
> discrimination per se must be based on some underlying drama or
> judgment that needs to be eliminated.

Yes, I find that we don't lose discrimination, we actually gain more 
discrimination, allowing the intellect to regain its innocent 
transparency: we can acknowledge and move beyond each pain-
engendering story entirely by inquiring into its absolute truth, 
acknowledging how it feels in the body, entertaining the feel of the 
story's absence, and playing with turn-arounds to the story, 
recognizing it's always deep-down about *us*.
 
> Does rory feel that his seeing swami g as still stuck in "remnants 
of
> dualism" or other people stuck fully in dualism is a perception 
based
> on some underlying drama of his?

Yes! There are no other people -- that's why I said "as WE 
inquire..." And absolutely, there are portions, particles, of me that 
are still working this stuff out; we are constantly cycling through 
our stories and returning again and again to the primordial 
innocence. 

That's the fun of it! I like to say, it's not the stories that cause 
the problem; it's *believing that the stories are real*. This place 
is a phenomenal playground -- *anything we think, we manifest!* What 
a treat! What an absolute Grace-gift! Be God for a day! 
Multidimensional, multisensory Creation! It's just that we've lost 
touch with how to operate the system, have forgotten how it works or 
even that it works and are unconsciously misusing our manifesting, 
having lost touch with our innocent divine-ordinariness and thinking 
ourselves the victim of someone else's play, of someone else's 
stories. 

There was a great original Star Trek episode that evoked this 
Understanding very neatly -- the crew went down to a planet that 
instantly manifested all their thoughts, and they were plagued with 
their own monstrous nightmares until they figured out the nature of 
the planet -- whereupon they left, realizing they could return when 
they had become more mature and learned how to think more 
consciously. Well, that's Earth!

Discrimination allows us to understand clearly it is all ourSelf 
playing with itSelf, telling stories about ourSelf, whereupon we 
cease to believe the stories and the suffering evaporates. The only 
reason I use the typewriter at all to express my thoughts is, I 
sometimes find that it appears to wake up *more* of my particles, 
enlivening *more* of mySelf than if I don't! In other words, it's 
fun! :-)

*L*L*L*

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > > 
> >
> > I don't want to interrupt your horse imitation,
> > but it's not quite the same. I've seen over half
> > of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
> > a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
> > final episode, *in addition to* having just read
> > the interview with the series' creator.
> >
> > By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet? :-)
> 
> It's interesting that clever rationalization and a worldview
> based on self-reinforcing, indoctrinated set of beliefs held in 
> place from lack of external exposure can lead to delusions
> which, to the deluded, seem real, convincing and even profoundly
> insightful. Such are the mechanics of true-believership.

LOL!!  Vaj, you're getting very good at this
self-satire business. Eventually you may even
win the title of Master of Inadvertent Irony
away from Barry, who has held it firmly for
years.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:44 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of 
Mahesh
> > > unravel once again.
> >
> > And which lies would those be, Vaj?
> 
> The ones exposed here (sorry, accidentally responded to the wrong  
> email!):

Right, and what are the lies exposed in this post?

Please highlight them for us.

The fact is, Vaj, the liar is you--again.

> 
> Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. 
There
> is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short
> for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the 
poster,
> and G = Swami G:
> 
> T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a 
Guru  
> was
> appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take 
full
> Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he
> was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the 
innermost
> knowledge to a secretary.
> 
> * Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully
> knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one
> tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another
> tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email,
> yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for
> instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But
> then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the 
Dasanami
> Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati
> order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis?
> 
> G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type 
of
> tradition -
> ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are
> Bharati/Giri/Puri
> and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time 
with
> Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic
> practices and
> knowledge. All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are 
basically
> Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name 
associated
> with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. 
So  
> do i
> need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this 
lineage.
> 
> * This would resolve her argument.
> 
> G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the
> Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not 
only
> here but also within this sect in india. 
> 
> * That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just
> employed vs being a student.
> 
> G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not
> a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many
> such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning
> About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is 
a
> common practice.
> 
> * Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in
> front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the
> first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he
> didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally 
wrong,
> but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute.
> 
> G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be
> speaking from.  this is what you don't understand. He may
> have been showing the first president around the Ashram but
> this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only
> read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them.
> 
> T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one
> being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken
> sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My 
Gurus
> general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting
> to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one.
> 
> * Traditionally this is the case.
> 
> G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and
> continues to remain.
> 
> * But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and
> Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear.
> 
> G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That
> Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and
> approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true.
> 
> But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya
> is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as
> the one to carry on as a Guru. -- he may give him blessings but
> he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the
> tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that.
> 
> * There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the
> case of Muktananda,
> 
> G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this
> on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his
> passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite
> clear a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:15 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


> 

I don't want to interrupt your horse imitation,
but it's not quite the same. I've seen over half
of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
final episode, *in addition to* having just read
the interview with the series' creator.

By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet? :-)


It's interesting that clever rationalization and a worldview based on  
self-reinforcing, indoctrinated set of beliefs held in place from  
lack of external exposure can lead to delusions which, to the  
deluded, seem real, convincing and even profoundly insightful. Such  
are the mechanics of true-believership.


However to someone simply outside the self-reinforcing mindset or  
someone truly objective, such a listener or speaker seems  
conditioned, deluded and flawed. No amount of logic, however  
rigorous, will jolt such a person into objectivity if they are  
convinced of their own delusions. Couple this with a style of  
meditation (e.g. cultivation of siddhis) which are traditionally said  
to engender delusions and you have a recipe for entrapment in that  
delusion and that mindset.


In this case, having someone who can render seeming opinions from  
movies, TV, events or gurus they have never seen or met and there is  
a real clear basis for such delusion even before true believership.  
It tends to create vacuous or semantical truths which are then only  
believable to someone who shares the same deluded mindset/beliefs but  
not those who are outside that mindset.


Reminds me of the old Tibetan saying:

On someone else’s nose
one won’t fail to notice
the presence of even
something as small as an ant.
But on one’s own nose
one won’t even see
something as big as a yak.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > there is no way a full initiate would be wearing white - and 
while
> > he may claim Guru Dev as his Guru, like stated before there is
> > no way a Full initiate and most certainly a Shakaracharya that
> > holds the rules of the order intact is going to appoint a
> > half initiate as a guru.
> > 
> > * Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive.
> > 
> Notice it is not Swami
> > Mahesh-Saraswati
> > Nor is it Mahesh-Giri , nor Mahesh-Bharati etc. He may claim to 
be 
> a  
> > part
> > of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once 
> again
> > let
> > it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He 
most
> > certainly
> > could have become an full initiate. -
> > 
> 
> 
> Vaj and the Guru should come together to further discuss 
superficial 
> and useless speculations in great detail. I'm sure Vaj will be 
more 
> than happy to help in spreading any, absolutely any conceivable 
> nonsense about Maharishi.
> 
> That fellow is very well known indeed on this forum for doing just 
> that :-)
>
I was thinking just that- how happy he was to climb in bed with 
Swami G. Swami G., and Swami Gee Whiz. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh  
> unravel once again.

Just one minute, Vaj my man, but if *lies* are unraveling, wouldn't 
that result in them revealing their truth? And what is wrong with 
truth? Methinks you meant to say, [Shiva's] so-called truths 
unraveling...C'mon get your slander right, ferchristsake.:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> snip
> 
> 
> 
> there is no way a full initiate would be wearing white - and while
> he may claim Guru Dev as his Guru, like stated before there is
> no way a Full initiate and most certainly a Shakaracharya that
> holds the rules of the order intact is going to appoint a
> half initiate as a guru.
> 
> * Therefor I think your Gurus assesment is somewhat restrictive.
> 
Notice it is not Swami
> Mahesh-Saraswati
> Nor is it Mahesh-Giri , nor Mahesh-Bharati etc. He may claim to be 
a  
> part
> of these traditions but no way is he initiated into it. And once 
again
> let
> it be reminded that the Math in the North is that of Giri. He most
> certainly
> could have become an full initiate. -
> 


Vaj and the Guru should come together to further discuss superficial 
and useless speculations in great detail. I'm sure Vaj will be more 
than happy to help in spreading any, absolutely any conceivable 
nonsense about Maharishi.

That fellow is very well known indeed on this forum for doing just 
that :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
> >  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > THEN HERE'S A SUGGESTION, TOOTS, SEE THE ACTUAL SHOW AND
> > > > > GET YOUR OWN OPINION ABOUT IT.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? What I'm interested in is the viewer reaction
> > > > to the show.  If I'd been interested in the show
> > > > itself, I'd have watched it.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, Shemp...get a clue. It's just like enlightenment.
> > > Why experience it when you can read about it or hear
> > > someone talk about it on videotape? It's so much easier
> > > that way -- you get to sound knowledgeable AND you get 
> > > to keep your self.
> > 
> > You mean, like this?
> > 
> > "I didn't see it, and haven't been following the
> > series closely, but I just finished reading an
> > article in which the creator of the series said
> > that he ended the series that way on purpose,
> > to *avoid* the 'closure' that many people wanted.
> > 
> > "They wanted Tony to 'get what was coming to him'
> > because he was a 'bad guy.' They wanted similar
> > fates to befall all of the people in the series
> > that they wanted to 'bag' as good or bad, black
> > or white. The creator of the series wanted to
> > *mess* with that, and, I hear, did."
> > 
> > 
> 
> I don't want to interrupt your horse imitation,
> but it's not quite the same.

Sure it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
You qualified your account of Chase's view of
the ending by saying you hadn't seen it. I
qualified my remarks about viewer reaction the
same way.

 I've seen over half
> of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
> a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
> final episode, *in addition to* having just read
> the interview with the series' creator.

Fine. But I'm not *interested* in seeing the series,
any of it. Never was. I *am* interested in the viewer
reaction to it, both reviewers and audience members.
I can speak knowledgeably about how the viewers have
reacted, especially to the ending, because I've read
quite a bit of what they've said. I haven't pretended
to be knowledgeable about the series itself.

What I was addressing was the notion that Chase had
intended for the audience to see Tony as a bad guy,
to not have any sympathy for him, to want to see him
whacked at the end. If that is what Chase had in mind,
he failed with a significant part of the audience,
based on the viewer reactions that I've read.

I find that fascinating. And there's no need for
me to have seen the series to make that observation.
Not having seen it, I don't have a dog in the fight.
My own reactions aren't mixed up with my observation
of the reactions of others, so I have a clearer
picture of the discrepancy than some others here,
yourself and Shemp included, and possibly even
including Chase, if your account of what he says is
accurate.

Different perspective. If it doesn't interest you,
fine, but why dump on me for making the observation?
Silly question. It's because you're more interested,
always, in dumping on people than in actual
discussion, even if you have to fabricate an
excuse to do so, as in this case.

> By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)

Not interested.

Have you seen Lynch's latest movie yet? You know,
the one you said was "stupid" before you'd seen
it (and then deleted the post)?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Safari now available windows

[Vaj]

So you've tried it?

Is it really faster that IE?

On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:41 AM, bob_brigante wrote:


Looks like a better browser than IE7, but does not support Yahoo's
newest mail, so I have to use both IE7 and Safari:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/technology/12apple.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh  
> unravel once again.
> 
> This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron.
> 
> Veritas liberat.

Hello,

Well, As was suggested by Swami G , one honors where one benefitted
from. I went really deep with Tm in the last 5 years. Swami G's
general comments are it readied me for what is taking place now.
Actually, there are a few others from TM now with Swami G, but also
from other Gurus, and it is even a comment from Swami G how it seems
those who have a backgraound with other gurus progress well in this path.

I have been in the trap of what Swami G refers to as a pity party, and
Swami G as well in her journey. I am a little short of time now to
explain but is comsumes more energy to moan and grown about the wrongs
that has been done to me. So, the thing is, time to move forward.

Take what was gained, honor that, and then apply it for what is taking
place now. Swami G was in LA living with prabu pad for a few years
(ISKON- harry krishna) , while she never took initiation there,
Prabupad told her she would reach realization there this life. Again,
while Swami G points out the Bhakti lesson gained while being there,
she points out that she felt Prabupad did an injustice to the
knowledge, as he knew more than he gave out for various reasons that
can be explained but I am short of time now.

This is what was meant that on the one hand honor what was given, but
at the same time, if there are lackings there, it is seva to point it
out, then this can be a lauching pad for one in their journey while
moving forward.

Tanmay

[FairfieldLife] Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors

[Vaj]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070406_past_lives.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:44 AM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh
> unravel once again.

And which lies would those be, Vaj?



The ones exposed here (sorry, accidentally responded to the wrong  
email!):


Note: I am forwarding a response from Swami G to the last post. There
is a mixture of comments from me and also the poster. Me = T ( short
for Tanmay which is my spirital name given at diksha), *= the poster,
and G = Swami G:

T: Coming from my Guru, it was said there is a tradition where a Guru  
was

appointed Guru by their Guru. Furthermore, Maharishi did not take full
Sanyas vows, or full vows within the tradition of GuruDev. Maybe he
was a secretary? It is not normal for a Guru to entrust the innermost
knowledge to a secretary.

* Well here one must say, that neither you nor your Guru are fully
knowledgeable about this tradition. See, its very simple to take one
tradition, where one comes from, and then project on another
tradition, how things ought to be. And its os nice to have email,
yahoo messanger and internet at ones disposal, and using it for
instruction (some more traditioanlly minded people wouldn't do). But
then why doesn't your Guru look up a simple article about the Dasanami
Sampradaya on Wikipedia, and she would know, that in the Saraswati
order only Brahmins can be made Sanyasis?

G Look i KNOW this type of tradition, i am INITIATED into this type of
tradition -
ok you have read about it . The brother sister ones to here are
Bharati/Giri/Puri
and although i am not within the Saraswati Akh??as have spent time with
Sadhus that are - and trust me in this we have the same basic
practices and
knowledge. All 10 come down from Shakaracharya - All 10 are basically
Shavite. As far as Jyotimath is concerned *Giri* is the name associated
with this Math - Traditionally the Saraswatis are from the south. So  
do i

need to read up to find out about this lineage - i Live this lineage.

* This would resolve her argument.

G there is no argument - i am commenting from Living within the
Tradition of being a fully initiated Renunicate that has lived not only
here but also within this sect in india. 

* That MMY was GD's secretary, doesn't mean he was just
employed vs being a student.

G he was a Brahachari - it is known absolutely that he was not
a fully initiated Swami. Undoubtedly he was a student there are many
such nowadays - brahmachari's that are in the process of learning
About the tradition before being formally inducted into it. This is a
common practice.

* Anyone can see on the youtube video that he was speaking in
front of GD, he is shown on photos of showing the
first president of india around in the Ashram - so don't tell me he
didn't have the trust of GD. I am not saying Swami G is totally wrong,
but I do see that she takes her own path as sort of absolute.

G My path IS the same tradition as the one he is supposed to be
speaking from.  this is what you don't understand. He may
have been showing the first president around the Ashram but
this proves absolutely nothing. The problem is you have only
read about the traditions and haven't actually lived within them.

T: My Guru said that in her case, there is one
being groomed now for this position, but this is one that has taken
sanyas and it simply is a flow that this person is selected. My Gurus
general comments are this is how a Guru is appointed, not by wanting
to be Guru or declaring ones self to be one.

* Traditionally this is the case.

G yes And ? there are no but's - this is the way it has been and
continues to remain.

* But look at the controversies in many traditions, Hindu and
Buddhist - very often the succession is not clear.

G look succession was not clear when it came to Guru Dev. That
Math had no heir for over 100 Years. - Guru Dev was choosen and
approved by the other Shankaracharya's. That is true.

But there is NO way - not ANYWHERE - that a Shankaracharya
is going to appoint a brahmachari that is not even a full swami as
the one to carry on as a Guru. -- he may give him blessings but
he most assuredly will not appoint him to buck the whole of the
tradition. And what you are putting forth would be exactly that.

* There maybe contradiory statements of the Guru, like in the
case of Muktananda,

G Muktananda was also not held up or appointed. i have this
on full reliability with one that was With Nithyananda at his
passing. Nithyananda left his body by will - and was quite
clear as to why. This is another matter though one that i
will not get into at this point in time.

* or simply missing public instructions, or the
tradition has a certain restrictive format, like in the case of GD.

G i know what the restrictions are within this tradition. i also know
what mantras are given - i know the in's and outs of this tradition
as far as what the Dasnami traditions do and don't do. --- did y

[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy asks a hard question

[Janet Luise]

Tom Hickey answers this question in great detail in a book I've been
proofreading.ONLY ONE IS  is the core truth of almost every wisdom
tradition.  But as TomT says  – only YOU can experience it.
 Tom HIckey is a very clear philosopher who has also experienced that
nondualistic state and as clearly as is possible  is presenting an
argument or explanation for those still stuck in dualism.
The book is now called Reframing Christianity. (Previously was
Periennial Philosophy & the Gospel of Thomas. as the Gospel of
Thomas is the clearest thing in Jesus literature that advocated
nonduaiism.)

 Philosophers basically study FRAMES. Tom shows all the differerent
factors that have lead normative Chistians to frame Jesus into the
Christian tradition.  In arguing that Jesus was really teaching the
basic core universal truths, Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah etc.  

It will be available for $10 electronically as soon as Janet can index
it in WORD & get it into a nice pdf & I'm sure of interest to a few of
you here.  It's a huge 550 pages & should probably be 3 different
books but am happy to have it coming out soon. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
"tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy writes: snipped
> The thing about Brahman, as Ken Wilber points
> out, is that It is "One without a second," One
> without an opposite. If you say It is X, that
> means It is not not-X, which gives not-X an
> existence independent of Brahman; it gives
> Brahman an opposite, a second.
> 
> TomT:
> Brahman is that in which both the Absolute and the Relative coexist
> and that which knows that is you. You are the glue that can know that
> both can exist and you are the only way that both can be know at the
> same time. That is why it is called the ultimate paradox. on the one
> hand is the relative (actually) and on the other hand is the absolute
> (actually). That which is the only thing that can know both of them as
> the singularity that is one without a second is you. Enjoy Tom
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
>  Those two things ( for me) are of the utmost importance in order for
> > significant progress- and emphasized- Sat Guru and one to one. For
> > those who have come across this, we can say that the universe has
> > offered a choice. Swami G 's general comments are this happens when a
> > sincere seeker is there, some may have one Guru in their journey, 
> some may have many.
> 
> I don't know much about Swami G., but the one on one is very 
> refreshing, and I find her comments quite interesting.  Plus, what a 
> remarkable transformation you have had.  Excuse me for saying this, 
> but 2 years ago you sounded just like Nabluss, and nothing against 
> Nabluss, but he will defend to the T's any statement, and position put 
> forth by MMY, or the TMO.  Nothing wrong with it, but it is very 
> rote.  Here you sound like balanced, open minded individual dedicated 
> to the path.
> 
> lurk
> > 
> 
> >
>
Hello,

I guess we can say shit happens. Swami G used dynamite with me
regarding the TM perspective but the dynamite rippled through in other
areas. Swami G explains ego is darkness, Sat guru is light. So, it
works out to useing what Swami G refers to as a velvet 2x4 = that is
what may be needed for the light to illumunate the darkness.

The ego may fight tooth and nail to hold it's thrown, but it surely
will have no problem holding it's thrown if it is going to be a
"cosmic ego"

See if you can find any sage like Ramana Maharishi talking about a
cosmic ego?

Ego is identification with body, mind, conditionings- it is the death
of all this, then who you thought you were- gone. When the body is
gone, ego, identification , conditionings are gone- is there something
left? yes, and that is who you are- it is the eternal IS, - This is
generally how Swami G would explain things.

So, I think in researching the great masters, they will say that a Sat
 Guru is needed, and they may say that working one to one is also
necessary. Otherwise, when one has some great experiecnes or samadhi,
then one thinks they have arrived, so they stop the sadana, then they
have stoped their chance at unfolding realization.

Sat Guru is One, so if I were to tout anything as part of my seva,
would recomend those two things- Any Sat Guru, and then one to one.
The thing is this is not easy to find but acording to Swami G, more
amd more Gurus are needed today as more and more are haveing
spontaneous Kundalini awakenings, then will this be directed so that
the greatest blessing in experienced as this is navigated for one;s
best interest? or will this go the way of a misguided and therefore
misunderstood expereience which can amount to big problems and even
hell for a person.

There is one Guru posting now in Muktanandas site, he is living in
South India and while Swami G has never met, and therefore can not
vouch for him, it is looking good so far. The last request I made to
him was to please have some of his sadakas forward their experiences. 

swami G is always interested to come across Sat Gurus because people
are spread out all over the globe, some may not have the finances to
travel, and if there is someone reputable to send them too, then
obviously great.


Tanmay

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
>  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > THEN HERE'S A SUGGESTION, TOOTS, SEE THE ACTUAL SHOW AND
> > > > GET YOUR OWN OPINION ABOUT IT.
> > > 
> > > Why? What I'm interested in is the viewer reaction
> > > to the show.  If I'd been interested in the show
> > > itself, I'd have watched it.
> > 
> > Yeah, Shemp...get a clue. It's just like enlightenment.
> > Why experience it when you can read about it or hear
> > someone talk about it on videotape? It's so much easier
> > that way -- you get to sound knowledgeable AND you get 
> > to keep your self.
> 
> You mean, like this?
> 
> "I didn't see it, and haven't been following the
> series closely, but I just finished reading an
> article in which the creator of the series said
> that he ended the series that way on purpose,
> to *avoid* the 'closure' that many people wanted.
> 
> "They wanted Tony to 'get what was coming to him'
> because he was a 'bad guy.' They wanted similar
> fates to befall all of the people in the series
> that they wanted to 'bag' as good or bad, black
> or white. The creator of the series wanted to
> *mess* with that, and, I hear, did."
> 
> 

I don't want to interrupt your horse imitation,
but it's not quite the same. I've seen over half
of the episodes of the series, and had just watched
a twenty-minute Net film of the highlights of the
final episode, *in addition to* having just read
the interview with the series' creator.

By the way, have you seen Apocalypto yet?  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: How Judy deals with life

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > THEN HERE'S A SUGGESTION, TOOTS, SEE THE ACTUAL SHOW AND
> > > GET YOUR OWN OPINION ABOUT IT.
> > 
> > Why? What I'm interested in is the viewer reaction
> > to the show.  If I'd been interested in the show
> > itself, I'd have watched it.
> 
> Yeah, Shemp...get a clue. It's just like enlightenment.
> Why experience it when you can read about it or hear
> someone talk about it on videotape? It's so much easier
> that way -- you get to sound knowledgeable AND you get 
> to keep your self.

You mean, like this?

"I didn't see it, and haven't been following the
series closely, but I just finished reading an
article in which the creator of the series said
that he ended the series that way on purpose,
to *avoid* the 'closure' that many people wanted.

"They wanted Tony to 'get what was coming to him'
because he was a 'bad guy.' They wanted similar
fates to befall all of the people in the series
that they wanted to 'bag' as good or bad, black
or white. The creator of the series wanted to
*mess* with that, and, I hear, did."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh  
> unravel once again.

And which lies would those be, Vaj?

 
> This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron.
> 
> Veritas liberat.
> 
> On Jun 11, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Ron wrote:
> 
> > > I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-)
> >
> > * I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past 
few
> > years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a 
very
> > dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and 
wrongs
> >
> > G dualistic and fundamentalist ? i preach no dogmas - nothing  
> > dualistic,
> > maybe he doesn't like what i have to say but at least be factual  
> > and the
> > above is about the farthest from what is here.
> >
> > * and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing
> > what
> > is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is.
> >
> > G there are Many Guru's that i am quite fond of -  Many 
teachings
> > and paths
> > that are Fantastic.
> >
> > As far as loving what is - There is nothing better than being 
freed  
> > of the
> > driving mind.
> > Nothing better than being free of the suffering identifications. 
In  
> > any
> > moment Bliss
> > may be entered and enjoyed, simply from the movement of leaves on 
a  
> > tree -
> > or the
> > sound of a passing car which brings vibrational waves throughout  
> > the whole
> > being.
> >
> > Yes this is loving what IS. Enjoying that Still point which all 
life
> > revolves around
> > is loving what IS.
> >
> > Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is -
> >
> > do you love the war ? Do you love when guru's or preachers speak  
> > from a
> > platform
> > that only continues stirring up fear or preying upon fears and
> > insecurities
> > ?
> > There is a vast difference in Loving the person versus loving 
what is
> > termed
> > sin
> > ie: that which separates and keeps one separated from that One  
> > Divine IS
> > which
> > is freedom. When things are encountered which keep separation in  
> > place -
> > and continue keeping people bound then yes - this one will speak 
out.
> >
> > i have no anger, nothing against any individual though. i cannot  
> > remain in
> > that
> > type of mindset. i may speak against what one is doing but this 
has
> > nothing
> > to
> > do with my loving them any less as having that One Divine 
Essence  
> > as Self.
> >
> > As far as advaitic crowd have always held that Gangaji has merit  
> > and gives
> > a technique that is quite fine.
> >
> > i am simply not going to comment on a teacher and teaching that i 
am
> > not
> > familiar with -
> >
> > Neither does living within the conscious reality of Non-duality 
mean
> > having
> > a head
> > in the sand when it comes to issues within the realm of duality.
> >
> > Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - 
and if
> > you are a
> > murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what 
you  
> > are.
> > Neither
> > will i say that some of these gurus that are turning the path 
into a
> > spiritual buisness
> > are upholding the dharma and having compassion for the world 
state.
> >
> > Now if you want to call this having a dogma and being in a 
dualistic
> > fundamentalist
> > mindset then be my guest. No matter as the truth of what is said  
> > here will
> > be born
> > out eventually.
> >
> > May you find THAT which is the Life of ALL Life and the Death of 
ALL
> > Death.
> > maha shanti om
> > 0
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Those two things ( for me) are of the utmost importance in order for
> significant progress- and emphasized- Sat Guru and one to one. For
> those who have come across this, we can say that the universe has
> offered a choice. Swami G 's general comments are this happens when a
> sincere seeker is there, some may have one Guru in their journey, 
some may have many.

I don't know much about Swami G., but the one on one is very 
refreshing, and I find her comments quite interesting.  Plus, what a 
remarkable transformation you have had.  Excuse me for saying this, 
but 2 years ago you sounded just like Nabluss, and nothing against 
Nabluss, but he will defend to the T's any statement, and position put 
forth by MMY, or the TMO.  Nothing wrong with it, but it is very 
rote.  Here you sound like balanced, open minded individual dedicated 
to the path.

lurk
> 

>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Vaj]

No surprises here, but good to see in print as the lies of Mahesh  
unravel once again.


This would be worth adding to the list archives Ron.

Veritas liberat.

On Jun 11, 2007, at 9:52 PM, Ron wrote:


> I wonder if this Guru would enjoy Byron Katie... :-)

* I doubt it. I've come across Swami G several times in the past few
years, and it's always been in a context of conflict. She has a very
dualistic and fundamentalist mindset about spiritual rights and wrongs

G dualistic and fundamentalist ? i preach no dogmas - nothing  
dualistic,
maybe he doesn't like what i have to say but at least be factual  
and the

above is about the farthest from what is here.

* and how things SHOULD be. Anyone who's that fond of criticizing
what
is is probably not going to enjoy loving what is.

G there are Many Guru's that i am quite fond of -  Many teachings
and paths
that are Fantastic.

As far as loving what is - There is nothing better than being freed  
of the

driving mind.
Nothing better than being free of the suffering identifications. In  
any

moment Bliss
may be entered and enjoyed, simply from the movement of leaves on a  
tree -

or the
sound of a passing car which brings vibrational waves throughout  
the whole

being.

Yes this is loving what IS. Enjoying that Still point which all life
revolves around
is loving what IS.

Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is -

do you love the war ? Do you love when guru's or preachers speak  
from a

platform
that only continues stirring up fear or preying upon fears and
insecurities
?
There is a vast difference in Loving the person versus loving what is
termed
sin
ie: that which separates and keeps one separated from that One  
Divine IS

which
is freedom. When things are encountered which keep separation in  
place -

and continue keeping people bound then yes - this one will speak out.

i have no anger, nothing against any individual though. i cannot  
remain in

that
type of mindset. i may speak against what one is doing but this has
nothing
to
do with my loving them any less as having that One Divine Essence  
as Self.


As far as advaitic crowd have always held that Gangaji has merit  
and gives

a technique that is quite fine.

i am simply not going to comment on a teacher and teaching that i am
not
familiar with -

Neither does living within the conscious reality of Non-duality mean
having
a head
in the sand when it comes to issues within the realm of duality.

Unlike Balsekar i am not going to say all is perfect as it is - and if
you are a
murderer then that is quite fine it is perfect and just be what you  
are.

Neither
will i say that some of these gurus that are turning the path into a
spiritual buisness
are upholding the dharma and having compassion for the world state.

Now if you want to call this having a dogma and being in a dualistic
fundamentalist
mindset then be my guest. No matter as the truth of what is said  
here will

be born
out eventually.

May you find THAT which is the Life of ALL Life and the Death of ALL
Death.
maha shanti om
0

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[Ron]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Loving what *IS* may be different than loving what is -
> > 
> > Yes, what appears to be the remnants of dualism. I'm finding as we 
> > inquire into and integrate our self-righteously scripted reactions 
> > around warmongers, liars, false gurus, misusers of power, etc. ("I'm 
> > better than so-and-so!") we see that after all we have been indulging 
> > in the false-intellect, and have only been projecting our own dramas 
> > onto the Emptiful perfection, withholding our all-inclusive Love and 
> > superimposing an illusory snake upon an innocent string, and here and 
> > now find that what had appeared to be "sin" only IS IS,
indescribable, 
> > radiantly beautiful, a perfect reflection of the Self -- as it has 
> > always been! 
> > 
> There may be some self righteousness and feeling of "I'm better than"
> behind perceptions of false gurus and manipulators of power, and those
> feelings should be addressed which may alter the subtle feelings
> around those perceptions and how they're expressed, but I don't think
> that spiritual growth towards unity eliminates the ability to makes
> those distinctions between truth and falsehood, in fact it seems to me
>  that that ability to discriminate becomes clearer.  IE I dont think
> discrimination per se must be based on some underlying drama or
> judgment that needs to be eliminated.
> 
> Does rory feel that his seeing swami g as still stuck in "remnants of
> dualism" or other people stuck fully in dualism is a perception based
> on some underlying drama of his?
>
Hello,

I guess I can offer a little food for thought here. There are no rules
that say one that is enlightened must keep it secret. I have been
saying things are direct and to the point here in my path. So, for a
starter, one can ask Swami G, are you enlightened. The reply is yes.

>From here, one can go into further inquiry as is needed for one to
feel satisfied that they have the answers they need, should they want
to further probe how it can be of benefit to have an enlightened Guru
guilding them one to one.

Tanmay

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev's deathbed instructions to Maharishi . . .

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  
> wrote:
>  
> > I can't deny my own experience. 
> > 
> > I am a TM teacher who has directly experienced Guru Dev during TM
> > initiations and otherwise. I know of at least 7 other people, 
> three of
> > them TM initiators who have said they also have experienced Guru 
> Dev
> > directly. By experiencing Guru Dev directly, I mean in visual form,
> > auditory communication [telepathic] form, or even in changes in 
> Guru
> > Dev's facial expression in a revered photo of Guru Dev. 
> > 
> > It has also been taught to TM teachers [as it was at my TTC] that A
> > TMer's spiritual teacher and link to the Absolute is indeed Guru 
> Dev
> > and not Maharishi or the TM initiator.
> > 
> Wonderful, wonderful experiences! Thanks for sharing them here! 
> Count me in as someone who experiences Brahmananda Saraswati 
> constantly. I've had a personal relationship with Him for ~25 years 
> now, and it is the most grounded, honest and uncompromising 
> relationship of my life. There is just no escaping His living truth, 
> His eternal essence, His Divine personality.
> 
> After a long period doing TM and praying a lot to Guru Dev, in 1980  
> I took the Siddhis course and afterwards moved to Santa Barbara. 
> During long soothing and somewhat lonely bike rides along the lemon 
> and avocado groves, I began to see Guru Dev's head and shoulders in 
> the center of my sight, my "third eye". I had this experience for 
> awhile. In a few years my experience progressed to seeing Him in 
> full form whenever I would summon him to help me. Then it culminated 
> in a week I spent in His constant presence, flooded with His bliss. 
> 
> These days it is just any part of Him that I wish to experience. We 
> are pretty close at this point, though He does what He does and I 
> muddle along here on earth, doing what I do.
> 
> I've told this chronology here before. Not for those who enjoy 
> doubting it, or to create a false impression of myself. But rather 
> because there are always those who appreciate reading the 
> experience, just as I have appreciated reading yours, and to let all 
> who wish to, know that Guru Dev is always available to any who wish 
> for Him to be. The asking must be sincere and focused, and then He 
> comes.:-)


Indeed. Excellent. Thank you.