[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bhairitu wrote: Gods, BTW, are just personifications of the subtle fields that sages experienced in meditation. They were personified so that the ordinary person could conceptualize them. You got it backwards, once again, Mr. Bharat2. The Vedic Devas are the personifications of the forces of nature, like the Wind, Fire, Earth, etc. Devas are supernal deities, not persons or states of conciousness. The Devatas of later Hinduism are deified heroes, such as Krishna, Rama, Ramchandra, Vasudeva and Devaki. They are deemed transcendental persons, described in the later Vedic literature as the subtle fields of conciousness. Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hutterists? Yes I have
They R similar in theology to the Mennonites we more commonly know. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Posting Limits
On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Rick Archer wrote: P.S., Angela, you’re up to 27 posts. And Jim Flanegin is at 32. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of a ladder I can use) But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. You yourself have decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at the one that works for you. I am actually not exactly sure in how many Gods/gods I believe ;-)But basically there is no big difference in believing in 108 Gods or only 107 Gods or actually just one God. It doesn't matter, as you believe there is a consciousness beyound your individual mind, and that there is
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ordinary village people don't have a problem with conceptualizing persons as heroes or devatas. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. I don't get it. This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Scorpio / Can't Stop Productions
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. Likewise. I'm sure I'll learn something. Snip Me the opposite, I use them for my art. T: When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. I didn't say I control them, I said I use them. There are lots of ways people access their unconscious processes, meditation being one. I don't feel as if I am in control of them or conscious of them. But like the fungi that live under the soil occasionally a mushroom pops up on the surface. If you know something about what conditions to make them pop you can create more favorable conditions for it to happen more often. I think I am in agreement with your point that there is much that is never known. Certainly my ego isn't in control of all of my unconscious processes. ME: Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. T: I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. I can be as naive as the next person, but I don't think I really follow your point here. I don't take anything as it appears as the truth. My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. I am not confused about who I am, but that does include plenty of mystery including unconscious processes. Snip T: Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. ME: I often find that down deep under the spiritual terms, I share beliefs about life with overtly spiritual people. The term God isn't useful for me but I understand it is for others. But when I say life, I don't mean any of the God concepts I have come across. Maybe Pantheism, I should look into that. I would attend WICCA meetings but I am sure to get kicked out for leering. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. T: Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of a ladder I can use) ME: OK ME But not adapting these concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. T: It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. Me: I hope I have cleared up that I do acknowledge unconscious processes beyond my conscious mind. If you are taking it to an extreme version of philosophical skepticism about the authorship of the actions I do control, you may be going beyond my POV. Even using the intellect in this way is coming from a whole epistemological POV that I don't share. I don't cut up my mental processes that way. I understand reality with all my human faculties just like you. ME
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Because when my world view crashed, it left but one thing behind. It left my Isness. I found that I'm immortal, that I'm always joined with God. Nothing can ever sever me unless I give it permission. I remember in '81 when I left MIU and returned home and re-entered the real world. I had to come to grips with some of my desires, which pertained to sex, diet, routine, meditation. I was breaking away from the habits and thought patterns I had been abiding. Concurrent with the thought, Okay, I'm breaking the rules, was, This is who I am, If I'm going to get struck down, so be it, but THIS IS WHO I AM, AND I ACCEPT IT. This was my awakening. Nothing has been the same since. I have heard many others here express this same sentiment. I'm not sure if this is what they call waking down. I kinda lost my interest in getting involved in any groups. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You have the right to say anything you want. When you say I am God I have the right to say Uh oh. I have my reasons. Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite the opposite, I use them for my art. When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Being confident about knowledge is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human cognitive errors. I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, as the truth, as far as I understood you. E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which you take for granted obviously. I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of your consciousness, that is your business. Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter brontebaxter8@ wrote: snip Because when my world view crashed, it left but one thing behind. It left my Isness. I found that I'm immortal, that I'm always joined with God. Nothing can ever sever me unless I give it permission. I remember in '81 when I left MIU and returned home and re-entered the real world. I had to come to grips with some of my desires, which pertained to sex, diet, routine, meditation. I was breaking away from the habits and thought patterns I had been abiding. Concurrent with the thought, Okay, I'm breaking the rules, was, This is who I am, If I'm going to get struck down, so be it, but THIS IS WHO I AM, AND I ACCEPT IT. This was my awakening. Nothing has been the same since. I have heard many others here express this same sentiment. I'm not sure if this is what they call waking down. I kinda lost my interest in getting involved in any groups. lurk Brilliant! Waking down!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control'
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Angela
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories are true, and, since it is in the interest of the ruling classes for the rest of us to remain in the dark, all kinds of outrageous conspiracy theories are planted to throw us off. Remember, too, that a theory is just a theory, but what happens to a theory when there are veritable mountain ranges of evidence? Thank you for sharing this. This is just so awesome, and I am going to re-read it and let percolate over the next few days and weeks. lurk
[FairfieldLife] Comcast Caught Sensoring Political Emails
2007-10-15
Thread
Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
*How Comcast Censors Political Content* Or *Why My Comcast Horror Story Is Better Than Yours* *By David Swanson* Most Comcast internet customers seem to have horror stories, but in my humble opinion this one is a doozie and may even suggest threats to freedom of speech more significant than the jailing of a court stenographer. I'm working on a campaign headquartered at www.afterdowningstreet.org that seeks to draw attention to the Downing Street Minutes and to lobby Congress to open an investigation into whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of traffic. In addition, July 23rd is the three-year anniversary of the meeting on Downing Street that produced the now infamous minutes, and we are organizing events all over the country on that day. Or, we're trying to. But we noticed about a week ago that everyone working on this campaign was having strange Email problems. Some people would get Emails and some wouldn't, or they'd receive some but not others. Conference calls were worse than usual (I can't stand the things anyway) because half the people wouldn't get the info and know where to call in. Organizing by internet is super easy, but when you have to follow up every Email with a phone call to see if someone got it, it becomes super frustrating. Volunteers have been complaining all over the country – especially now that we've figured out what the problem was and they know what to complain about. We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been unable to receive any Email with www.afterdowningstreet.org in the body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events. From the flood this evening of Emails saying Oh, so that's why I haven't heard anything from you guys lately, it seems clear that we would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if not for this block by Comcast. Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but Comcast was slow to fix the problem. During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested in doing that. Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either. By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/1602.htm Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the problem in a matter of minutes. So, why does this matter? Comcast has a near monopoly on high-speed internet service in much of this country, including much of the Washington, D.C., area. Many members of the media and many people involved in politics rely on it. Three days ago, I almost decided to put a satellite dish on my roof. There's no other way for me to get high-speed internet, unless I use Comcast. Comcast effectively censors discussion of particular political topics, and impedes the ability of people to associate with each other, with absolutely no compulsion to explain itself. There is no due process. A phrase or web address is tried and convicted in absentia and without the knowledge of those involved. Now, did Comcast do this because it opposes impeaching the President? I seriously doubt it. Apparently the folks at Symantec did this, and Comcast condoned it. But why? Well, we have no evidence to suggest that these 46,000 complaints actually exist, but we can be fairly certain that if they do, they were generated by someone politically opposed to our agenda. There's simply no possible way that we've accidentally annoyed 46,000 random people with stray Emails and mistyped addresses. We've only been
Re: [FairfieldLife] The good things TM gave us
Bronte Baxter wrote: snip Actually the advanced techniques are more like the traditional mantras without omkara. But most TM'ers including teachers never step out enough to learn mantra shastra to know that and MMY never taught mantra shastra which is the science of mantras. Using bij aksharas as a meditation mantra is very controversial among Indian sages and without om even more controversial. Bronte: Could you expand on that? This is a new area to me. What are bij aksharas and why are they controversial? What are the two sides of the argument? Bij aksharas or bija mantra are seed mantras (bij means seed). They are used to enliven longer mantras. They are seldom used to meditate on by themselves. The TM first techniques are all well known bij aksharas. Using a planetary mantra here is an example: Om ing kling brihaspataye namah. The bij aksharas ing and kling enliven the sanskrit name for Jupiter: Brihasphati. This makes the mantra more powerful than just Om Brihaspataye Namah. Likewise adding the bij mantras brang, bring, brown to a mantra for Rahu makes it more powerful: Om bring brang brown seh rahuve namah. (Rahu is the north lunar node). Though there may be a few Indian sects that use bij mantras by themselves outside of TM I really don't know of any. Most gurus give traditional mantras for yogic meditation which is meditation for the masses. When they initiate someone into their tradition they give the initiate the guru mantra which is a special mantra that has been passed down through the tradition and gains power with each generation. Guru mantras can enliven other mantras. It has been claimed that Maharishi originally gave out the shanti mantra Ram (or Jai Ram) when he started TM. Some think that he switched to the bij mantras to make TM unique as many gurus would have given out that same shanti mantra. I also observe that unlike more traditional mantras that transcend slowly bij mantras tend to dip vertically (just like the bubble diagram) giving quick tastes of the transcendent. Remember that MMY also wanted people to get the advanced techniques as early as a year and a half which are more traditional and keep you in the transcendent longer. Many gurus think that using bij mantras by themselves can cause problems because they are so powerful. Also it is very non-traditional to not use Om (omkara) with the mantra. Which is even a greater controversy since MMY got the idea that it causes poverty but look at all the Indian millionaires who practice traditional mantras with Om in them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:30 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWPTtJ-Z4lU The ordinary Village People speak out. Can't Stop the Silliness. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Links between New Age and Naziism -- in Fairfield?
My point is very obvious. It is you who should read the posts. If you didn't even know that MMY ever said anything about Hitler, why then do you write MMY's interest in Hitler, as if it were an accepted fact, and far more weighty than a few scattered comments? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the posts. I made zero comments about what MMY said. All that came from others, which I noted with interest. I had no idea he ever said anything at all about Hitler. So what, exactly, have I distorted? a feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting how you take a few comments scattered over the years that MMY may or may not have said about Hitler and turn it into MMY's interest in Hitler, which implies something quite different. And you make this blatant distortion in the interest of . . . what, precisely? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: MMY's interest in Hitler may be to the point and it may not. My interest in Hitler certainly doesn't make me a Nazi. Someone has suggested that my interest in these things is not good for me. I'd like to know why not? Is a historian's field of interest not good for him? Is a researcher's interest in his field not good for him? Even were we to make a value judgment and say cancer is a bad thing, is a cancer researcher's interest bad for him? a jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 5:44 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:55 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: You also may not be aware, Mahesh was a real Hitler fan according to some movement insiders. I challenge you to verify these claims. You are a f. lier ! I'll post what I can find. Here's the first one: Maharishi said, on a radio show in Scandinavia, that Hitler was highly evolved. Msg. #51983 Of course he was-- how else could he have ammassed all of his power; conquering many countries, implementing his unspeakable atrocities, if it wasn't a manifestation of his own personal power? Those mechanics don't change whether a person is good or evil. I don't think that's the question. The question is 'why was Mahesh so darn fascinated by the guy'? Is he? Has he published endless volumes, and spoken at length about Hitler, for years? Sure doesn't seem that way from what little you have shared--it looks like a pretty minor interest on Maharishi's part. Could it be he is an Asuriac guru just lookin' for some tips? It is clear you'd like the answer to this to be yes, so why ask me? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
---Hsuan Hua on fate: Most people are of the opinion that a person's fate has a fixed arrangement. This is illustrated by the saying, When one's fate only allows for eight feet, it's difficult to seek for ten. Not bad! However, this is only spoken with reference to ordinary people. If one is a cultivator of the Way, then one doesn't fall into this sort of fate. Those who cultivate the Way shouldn't be consulting The Book of Changes. That's something which is used by the normal run of common person. Those who cultivate the Way are even able to put and end to birth and death, how much the more so are they able to deal with other forms of fate. There even more able to leap over such things. So, don't pay any attention to those things. (p.119) * In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, any religion certainly questions the independence of our mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At least thats what I have understood it to mean until now. Of course, everyone is aware of 'limitations' we all have,imposed to us by nature. But there is a fundamental belief that we are ourself in charge of what we believe in, that we with our mind can logically understand life and should reject irrationality. In fact religion is seen as 'irrational' by atheists, which implies that they believe in a rational understanding of life. IOW they regard ratio higher than feelings or experiences (as Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the same mystical experiences many of us share in a different way and strips them of any religious meaning they could have.) In fact he tries to understand them rationally only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' t3rinity, you have a polar opposite view from atheism regarding the authorship of any person's thoughts. While atheism denies the existence of God, you attribute all thoughts to God - Even the thoughts of atheists' that deny God's existence!! Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? Is the concept of free will too removed from the belief that God authors all ? What if God authored free will ? How would that concept fit for you ?
[FairfieldLife] Lynch Promotes Meditation on Israel Trip
From: Press Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:22:32 +0200 This Associated Press story will go all over the world. Click on the link to see the article with a photo of Mr. Peres and David: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jp6nI84algwK31AIJOyXSZmT6XXQD8S9R6300 Lynch Promotes Meditation on Israel Trip By REGAN E. DOHERTY - 4 hours ago JERUSALEM (AP) - David Lynch, on a five-day visit to Israel to encourage transcendental meditation, met with Israeli President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres. Lynch is one of the greatest directors of our generation and a giant artist on his own, and it is a great honor for the state of Israel to host you and listen to you, Peres said Monday. The whole of Israel recognizes your work and is proud to host you. The 61-year-old director, who has received Oscar nominations for The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet and Mullholland Dr., is visiting Israel to encourage transcendental meditation as a new approach to eliminating violence in schools and creating a peaceful world. Real peace is not just the absence of war, but the absence of all suffering, all negativity, Lynch said at the Sam Spiegel Film and Television School in Jerusalem. Change comes from within. From the first meditation, boom, you're there. Lynch has been meditating for more than 30 years. He started the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace to promote transcendental meditation as a way to aid students in violence-ridden schools and bring about world harmony. With meditation, Lynch said, the black cloud of negativity dissolves. Meditation can aid not only schoolchildren, but also bring tranquility to troubled regions of the world, he said. The experienced gardener doesn't worry about the leaves. Get at (the problem) from its roots, he said. A peace on the surface - it doesn't address the seeds of war ... it's a `peace' of paper. Lynch said if he had to choose between meditation and filmmaking, meditation would win. On the Net: David Lynch Foundation: http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ -- End of Forwarded Message
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Links between New Age and Naziism -- in Fairfield?
I have an abiding interest in the one called Hitler. He was a great man in this earth walking. --- feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is very obvious. It is you who should read the posts. If you didn't even know that MMY ever said anything about Hitler, why then do you write MMY's interest in Hitler, as if it were an accepted fact, and far more weighty than a few scattered comments? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the posts. I made zero comments about what MMY said. All that came from others, which I noted with interest. I had no idea he ever said anything at all about Hitler. So what, exactly, have I distorted? a feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting how you take a few comments scattered over the years that MMY may or may not have said about Hitler and turn it into MMY's interest in Hitler, which implies something quite different. And you make this blatant distortion in the interest of . . . what, precisely? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: MMY's interest in Hitler may be to the point and it may not. My interest in Hitler certainly doesn't make me a Nazi. Someone has suggested that my interest in these things is not good for me. I'd like to know why not? Is a historian's field of interest not good for him? Is a researcher's interest in his field not good for him? Even were we to make a value judgment and say cancer is a bad thing, is a cancer researcher's interest bad for him? a jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 5:44 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:55 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: You also may not be aware, Mahesh was a real Hitler fan according to some movement insiders. I challenge you to verify these claims. You are a f. lier ! I'll post what I can find. Here's the first one: Maharishi said, on a radio show in Scandinavia, that Hitler was highly evolved. Msg. #51983 Of course he was-- how else could he have ammassed all of his power; conquering many countries, implementing his unspeakable atrocities, if it wasn't a manifestation of his own personal power? Those mechanics don't change whether a person is good or evil. I don't think that's the question. The question is 'why was Mahesh so darn fascinated by the guy'? Is he? Has he published endless volumes, and spoken at length about Hitler, for years? Sure doesn't seem that way from what little you have shared--it looks like a pretty minor interest on Maharishi's part. Could it be he is an Asuriac guru just lookin' for some tips? It is clear you'd like the answer to this to be yes, so why ask me? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 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] Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mainstream20016 Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:59 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris Regarding the reassurance that SatYug is nigh at hand, through the inevitability and necessity of India's role to bring all good to all of us - Great ! Wonderful ! I look forward to cathcing the rays of a global bath of beneficent light. Yet, as a practicality, it would be a good thing, and wise, to have a direct hand in raising one's consciousness. So I advocate for wide-spread individual TM practice in the West, yet that cannot happen if TMO remains an overtly religious organization. TM has, and can again, be taught honestly and effectively as a secular technique. As the last thirty-two years has shown, unless TM is taught as a secular technique, it's impact will be nill, notwithstanding the coming glories of SatYug. Seems to me Pandora's box has been opened. Even if the TMO were to try to scale back and present TM as a secular technique, critics would be able to present all sorts of evidence that for decades, it has been associated with Hindu and various wacky things. The TMO would be accused of trying to hide all that for marketing purposes. ** You are, naturally, missing the point of what's happening completely. It does not matter how people in the West perceive TM -- it's enough that a few people, aided by the presence of pundits, are doing TM in the West -- it's only necessary that a few candles have been lit throughout the world, and that has been accomplished. India alone can be responsible for the transition to a Vedic culture, Sat Yuga, and in India semantics about TM as religion are meaningless. Bob, the ideas that: all is well...that everything is now being taken care of to bring Sat Yug made possible from India raise doubt in me, even though I fully support and encourage whoever is involved in raising consciousness. Westerners who financially support the TMO have likely been given similar reassurances while making donations, and the donors have come to expect full-well the large degree to which resources in the movement are funnelled out of the West. I suspect your perspective has few adherents. Why not encourage the widespread direct experience of TM ? * Because the West is too encased in ignorance -- as is obvious on this list from the many people who have dumped TM, there is a limit to how much light people living in dense ignorance can tolerate, and so it's just not possible to enable a more enlightened world on the basis of a lot of people outside India learning TM. Even in India, of course, life is lived in dense ignorance, but India is the home of the Ved, the natural place for a revival of Vedic civilization, and the people will respond favorably when the pundits open up a little more light there. So, the West is relegated to catching a few rays of light - and told it is ignorant and unable to tolerate higher states of consciousness directly, and therefore impossible for the West to contribute to a more enlighened world by widely learning TM. Go ahead, tell us what you really think about the West. geez. In contrast, I think the West, particularly the U.S., is in great need of TM, and will adopt TM broadly when it as a firmly presented as a secular technique, ala TM instruction prior to 1976, when the overtly religious TM-Sidhi program instruction began. No, the West won't adopt overtly religious programs, but that doesn't make the West ignorant - it makes it prudent, wise, and relevant. It's time, again, for a full-scale, secular based organization to teach TM as a secular technique, to provide individuals a direct experience of higher consciousness, rather than promising hints of higher consciousness rays generated from the other side of the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:24 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: If you watch The Occult History of the Third Reich, the BBC documentary, esp. the episode The SS: Blood and the Soil, it would become more apparent what the significance is. Prior to the arising of Hitler's authoritarian regime there was a great interest in meditation, vegetarianism, etc. much like our 1960's. Mahesh's ideas, if implemented, i.e. establishment of a worldwide Vedic society adhering to caste laws and ideas of Vedic purity, we would be following a very similar pattern. Would it result in the deaths of millions? It's impossible to say but the same pattern is in place already, and if left to his own devices we would see western cities being destroyed and rebuilt on the fourfold sthapatya-veda city- plan which segregates people by castes. That's not to say that all of what Angela is claiming as fact is factual. Hitler communicating daily with the 13th Dalai Lama? Give me a break! Many of the German fantasies about Tibet were long ago proven to be just that: fantasy. They'd make good Indiana Jones sequels, but should not be considered history in the scientific sense of that word. So...you are willing to entertain the most facile speculation and rumors regarding Maharishi, but dammit let's put these rumors to rest regarding the Dalai Lama, right now! Sorry Vaj, you don't come off as credible in the least-- Just someone peddling their own special brand of enlightenment. Dogmatic. Hi Jim, if you have evidence that the Dalai Lama's monks wore Nazi symbols on their ties, has plans to tear down western cities and rebuild them, molests his females students, etc. etc., I'd love to hear it Jim. Since I made no reference to any special brand of enlightenment your points seem rather moot. As I've pointed out on many occasions, there are numerous enlightenment traditions, all quite beautiful when passed on authentically and in undiluted fashion. Hi Vaj, what you are doing is cherry picking your 'evidence', to support your opinion. Do you know for certain that all of the Masters and teachers of what you call numerous enlightenment traditions, all quite beautiful when passed on authentically and in undiluted fashion, are free of the same behaviors that you accuse Maharishi of? Or do you look less critically at them, becuse they support your kind of enlightenment tradition?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:54 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Hi Vaj, what you are doing is cherry picking your 'evidence', to support your opinion. Do you know for certain that all of the Masters and teachers of what you call numerous enlightenment traditions, all quite beautiful when passed on authentically and in undiluted fashion, are free of the same behaviors that you accuse Maharishi of? Integrity of a teacher is important to me, that's all. Or do you look less critically at them, becuse they support your kind of enlightenment tradition? I test them all like gold.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
35, Jim. Sayonara.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Links between New Age and Naziism -- in Fairfield?
I was referring to other people's post. I don't know that he had any real interest. If he did, then that is certainly of interest and may relate to my line of inquiry, and then again, it may not. Whence the hostile tone? a feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is very obvious. It is you who should read the posts. If you didn't even know that MMY ever said anything about Hitler, why then do you write MMY's interest in Hitler, as if it were an accepted fact, and far more weighty than a few scattered comments? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the posts. I made zero comments about what MMY said. All that came from others, which I noted with interest. I had no idea he ever said anything at all about Hitler. So what, exactly, have I distorted? a feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting how you take a few comments scattered over the years that MMY may or may not have said about Hitler and turn it into MMY's interest in Hitler, which implies something quite different. And you make this blatant distortion in the interest of . . . what, precisely? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: MMY's interest in Hitler may be to the point and it may not. My interest in Hitler certainly doesn't make me a Nazi. Someone has suggested that my interest in these things is not good for me. I'd like to know why not? Is a historian's field of interest not good for him? Is a researcher's interest in his field not good for him? Even were we to make a value judgment and say cancer is a bad thing, is a cancer researcher's interest bad for him? a jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 5:44 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:55 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: You also may not be aware, Mahesh was a real Hitler fan according to some movement insiders. I challenge you to verify these claims. You are a f. lier ! I'll post what I can find. Here's the first one: Maharishi said, on a radio show in Scandinavia, that Hitler was highly evolved. Msg. #51983 Of course he was-- how else could he have ammassed all of his power; conquering many countries, implementing his unspeakable atrocities, if it wasn't a manifestation of his own personal power? Those mechanics don't change whether a person is good or evil. I don't think that's the question. The question is 'why was Mahesh so darn fascinated by the guy'? Is he? Has he published endless volumes, and spoken at length about Hitler, for years? Sure doesn't seem that way from what little you have shared--it looks like a pretty minor interest on Maharishi's part. Could it be he is an Asuriac guru just lookin' for some tips? It is clear you'd like the answer to this to be yes, so why ask me? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, you are missing my point. As I said, I have drawn some comparisons. I have drawn no conclusions, and I have called no one either good or evil. Angela, welcome to the board. You comparison is very dumb however. Every child and halfwit has, in the past, made this comparison in their head as a musing, and quickly realised it does not have legs. You think it is an interesting comparison. I am afraid it is not. It is weak, ill-thought-out, poorly concieved, and ultimately redundant, therefore it is a tedious waste of space, and that is what people are objecting to. OffWorld feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for confirming my point. I ask you a blunt question that draws out the implications of what you are saying, and you are at a loss as to how to respond. Precisely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Your first question misses my point so completely, I'm at a loss as to how to respond. And no, it's not hard to live in this town. I chose it and love it here. a feste37 feste37@ wrote: How many Jews has Maharishi murdered? How many death camps has he set up? It must be hard for you living in this town, surrounded by a movement that resembles the Nazis so closely. It seems to me that your mind is so distorted, heaven knows by what, that you cannot make clear distinctions between things. But welcome to this board. You truly belong here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I have no idea what you mean when you say, And are these same ideas being cloned onto splinter satsang groups? As for your other question, Are there significant parallels between the Third Reich and Mahesh's spiritual movement, I'd say definitely there are. Name any article of faith you find repeated in this town, name any of the often repeated quotes of things Mahesh is supposed to have said, and it was repeated and believed in Nazi Germany. They didn't call it enlightenment, but they were all striving to be the Ubermensch. It meant basically the same thing. Devotion to the Guru was important, and the Guru, for the SS, was Hitler. They thought of themselves as pure warriors monks. They could get married, of course, but they had to have permission from on high, and the girl had to pass muster. Purity of the nervous system was purity of the blood. They believed in karma, and in performing action established in Being. They believed in detachment and they believed in higher states of consciousness. They had nine of them. Gotta run. a Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Yes, I totally agree. Hitler was used by those who still want to establish the New World Order. In fact, he was told in those exact terms, New World Order, that he would be instrumental in establishing it. He wasn't told that he'd only be a step along the way, though. He believed he was to be the big enchilada---the thousand-year Reich was to be sat-yuga. The antisemitism was not real in the same sense that the terrorists we're all afraid of today are not real. Hitler needed a single enemy to focus the people's attention on. There is even some evidence that Jews supplied him with the notion that they could be that single enemy. It's not conclusive evidence, but certainly the Warburgs were involved in it, in spite of the fact that Paul Warburg lost two close relatives in the death camps. a Are there really significant parallels between the Third Reich and Mahesh yogis spiritual movement though? And are these same ideas being cloned onto splinter satsang groups? Rick posted a very interesting link to a video which purported to be by an ex-KGB agent which claimed groups like the KGB were observing the TMO for ideas in undermining nations. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: [FairfieldLife] Posting Limits
Please remind me of what the limit is. Thanks, a Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S., Angela, youre up to 27 posts. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting Limits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please remind me of what the limit is. Thanks, 35 post limit per week. You go girl ! OffWorld Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S., Angela, you're up to 27 posts. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] A coup for junk science -- National Post
A coup for junk science Gore's 'truth' nets Nobel Prize Terence Corcoran, National Post Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007 Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time, but who knew it had sunk so low it needed a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee? Rescuing and rewarding the obscure and the absurd has been a Nobel sideline for some years. The award has gone to half a dozen fringe movements and futile causes (the Gameen bank, Mother Teresa, nuclear disarmament, land mine activists, peace negotiators), ineffectual United Nations agencies and personalities (including KofiAnnan and the UN itself ), occasional warmongers (Yasser Arafat), plus an international assortment of minor and woolly-headed players on the world stage (Wangari Masthai, Jimmy Carter). Onto this heap of forgotten causes and marginalia the Nobel has just tossed Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's official climate science group. What a blow the award must be to the IPCC, self-proclaimed home of scientific rigour, to now be lumped in with Reverend Al and his Travelling Snake Oil Road Show and Climate Terror Machine. If history is any guide here, the IPCC is now doomed to slide into obscurity, joining the list of similarly feted UN agencies that beaver away in relative obscurity and ineffectiveness, their Nobels rotting on shelves: The International Atomic Energy Agency (2005), United Nations peacekeeping forces (1988), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1981), the International Labour Organization (1969) and the UN Children's Fund (1965). The first task of the IPCC now, one would think, is to craft a statement disavowing any link with Gore, whose film and book, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, deserved a Nobel for science fiction rather than peace. Not that the IPCC is squeaky clean on the science of climate accuracy. Even the Nobel committee's statement on the IPCC captured the agency's primary role as political shaper of opinion and builder of consensus. IPCC scientific reports have created an ever- broader informed consensus about man-made global warming. The Nobel committee said it wanted to contribute to a sharper focus on climate change around the world. Due to the timing of the award, that sharper focus may end up highlighting the gross scientific inaccuracies in Gore's work, thereby making millions of people wonder about the validity of climate science -- and the Nobel -- rather than rush to join its crusading proponents. Just hours before the Nobel announcement, Gore was busy spinning his way out of a devastating United Kingdom court case that found nine substantial science errors in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth. The nine errors, listed on Page A19 of this newspaper, are truly major. But Gore's office, in true political form, tried to turn the science disaster into victory, claiming he was gratified that the U.K. court had not totally banned distribution of his film in British schools. Instead, it would have to circulate like a package of cigarettes, with a warning label: Children watch this movie at peril of being politically manipulated by Al Gore into thinking what they are watching is true. This is fine with Gore, apparently, because the mistakes were only a handful amid thousands of other facts in the film. First of all, there are not thousands of facts in the film, except in the metaphysical sense. It is a fact that the world is presented as a globe floating in space, and a fact that Al Gore's wife looks pretty good in a sweater in the book version. But these are not the facts in dispute. The nine errors are core buttresses that support the whole hysterical narrative in the film and the book. I don't have the film here to review, but the book is at hand, and it would have to be ripped to pieces to remove the science mistakes found by the court, whole sections removed and key narratives and innuendos thrown out as invalid. There would be nothing left. The first theme of An Inconvenient Truth is that climate change is already devastating and that very dramatic changes are taking place. On that page in the book, and the next three, are pictures purporting to show that the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are disappearing. Not true, said the court. Twenty pages later, a foldout graphic claimed to show 650,000 years of proof that carbon levels in the atmosphere cause temperatures to rise. Not true, said the court. The chart actually shows temperatures increased first, then carbon levels rose. In the film, this sequence alone consumes maybe five minutes, a clever turning point in which Gore mounts a ladder to demonstrate soaring carbon levels and make other false claims. Pages of photos are built around Katrina and other hurricanes, which the court said cannot scientifically be pinned on global warming. And so it goes through the book, each of the nine errors a
[FairfieldLife] Ode to Intentional Character Building
I was thinking about this incredible poem by Rudyard Kipling today, which I memorized in high school. It was written by a man who believed wholly in free will and our power as individuals to create a better destiny, even a better character, for ourselves. A pretty unpopular concept these days when zombiefication is excused on the grounds of predetermination. Zombie aspirants, read this and weep. This is the kind of muster you sell out on: The poem is called If. If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master; If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two imposters just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools; If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: Hold on! If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -- Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And -- which is more -- you'll be a man, my son. - by Rudyard Kipling - Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
[FairfieldLife] An enlightened One's journey
OM Namo Narayan, Attempted to write something this morning about this one's background, but fell Silent. Only thing that came to 'mind' was: insignificantly significant. Once there was a me that beleived in True Peace, now there remains no *one* that Lives AS True Peace. This, sweet friends, is the Gift of SatGuru. *The Official Search began as a spontaneous kundalini awakening a little over a year ago. *Not versed (and without a hint of Belief) in anything spiritual or religious, the kundalini brought tremendous fear and confusion. *Pretty quickly Grace provided Guru and after an early blowout (this one didn't like the Truth initially.), Practices and Guru's Gift brought Grounding and Rapid Progress. *Practices, Humility and Surrender... day and night, night and day Revealed the Living Truth of Guru... of ONE. Guru's Grace is Essential. She pleaded, Please show Yourself to me! And so I moved to make my Presence Known. She ran in fear and ignorance, That is not You! Where are You? And so I came as Guru. I am Here as Guru without and also as Guru within. And she cried, You may be out here as Guru, but within there is only me. So I comforted her with Living Guidance and Practices. With Pure Love and Compassion, I Lead the Way. In Faith of My Living Form she remained Steady. In the Light of My Presence within she swam in Surrender. As she slowly dissolved into the Waters of My Being, My Presence Shined Brighter and Brighter. Then with a Final Brilliant Flash, she sank into the Depths of My Nothingness. Always Here Now I AM. Being AS Myself IN Myself and WITH Myself. The Only ONE. Not even as I, But AS IS. The Being, The Living, The Shining Presence of ALL That IS. Come BE what you ARE. SatGuru (I AM) is Here without to Show you I AM Here within. Bliss is your Being, Peace is your Pleasure, Eternal Life is your Nature. Pranams Guru. Shanti Shanti OMMM. Sat Chit Ananda, Sarojini
[FairfieldLife] Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. But there are 9 of 'em, according to a British judge. What is it they say about a house divided unto itself? From Times OnlineOctober 10, 2007 Al Gore told there are nine inconvienient truths in his film Not everything Al Gore says in his documentary is a proven fact Nico Hines A High Court judge today ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can be distributed to every school in the country but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors in Al Gore's Oscar-winning film. The Government had pledged to send thousands of copies of the film to schools across the country, but a Kent father challenged that policy saying it would brainwash children. A judge was asked to adjudicate between Stewart Dimmock and the Department of Children, Schools and Families. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film could be sent to schools, but only if it was accompanied by new guidlines to balance the former US vice- president's one-sided views The judge said some of the errors were made in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming. Related Links U-turn on showing of Al Gore film in school Al Gore tipped to win Nobel An inconvenient truth? He said that while the film was dramatic and highly professional, it formed part the ex-politician's global crusade on climate change and not all the claims were supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus. He went on to list those errors: Error one Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge's finding: This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's wake-up call. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - but only after, and over, millennia. Error two Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened. Error three Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially shutting down the Ocean Conveyor - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was very unlikely it would be shut down, though it might slow down. Error four Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed an exact fit. Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. Error five Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming. Judge: This specifically impressed David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. Error six Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge. Judge: It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability. Error seven Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming. Judge: There is insufficient evidence to show that. Error eight Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice. Judge: The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description. Error nine Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1- 3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over- fishing, and pollution was difficult.
[FairfieldLife] Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Lies...in pictures
http://tinyurl.com/2wv3b2
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
Gore Derangement Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/297p42 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. But there are 9 of 'em, according to a British judge. What is it they say about a house divided unto itself? From Times OnlineOctober 10, 2007 Al Gore told there are nine inconvienient truths in his film Not everything Al Gore says in his documentary is a proven fact Nico Hines A High Court judge today ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can be distributed to every school in the country but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors in Al Gore's Oscar-winning film. The Government had pledged to send thousands of copies of the film to schools across the country, but a Kent father challenged that policy saying it would brainwash children. A judge was asked to adjudicate between Stewart Dimmock and the Department of Children, Schools and Families. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film could be sent to schools, but only if it was accompanied by new guidlines to balance the former US vice- president's one-sided views The judge said some of the errors were made in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming. Related Links U-turn on showing of Al Gore film in school Al Gore tipped to win Nobel An inconvenient truth? He said that while the film was dramatic and highly professional, it formed part the ex-politician's global crusade on climate change and not all the claims were supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus. He went on to list those errors: Error one Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge's finding: This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's wake-up call. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - but only after, and over, millennia. Error two Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened. Error three Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially shutting down the Ocean Conveyor - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was very unlikely it would be shut down, though it might slow down. Error four Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed an exact fit. Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. Error five Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming. Judge: This specifically impressed David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. Error six Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge. Judge: It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability. Error seven Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans to global warming. Judge: There is insufficient evidence to show that. Error eight Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice. Judge: The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description. Error nine Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1- 3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Posting Limits
Thank you Lurk. Now, there was someone who said that my comparison was stupid. I'm not sure he deserves an explanation, but he shall have one whether or not he likes it. I told Bronte privately that I didn't mind if a guru blasted me clean, but I do mind if he then pumps me full of his shit. That, in a nutshell explains what happened in Germany. Meditation is certainly a good thing, it does blast you clean, and it is neutral. But a meditator is more vulnerable than an ordinary mortal to believing all kinds of stuff that his guru tells him. Absolute devotion to a guru makes me nervous because of Nazi Germany. I notice from the story of one woman about the guru type that just died that he absolutely abused his power and status. If you get pregnant, I don't want to know about it, just go get an abortion. Heinous! And, by the way, whoever called that a rumor should learn the difference between a rumor and a first person account. While I believe that meditation is (or can be) a good thing, I have some question about the effects of many people meditating together. I understand the theory of why the 1% should work, but that's just a theory. I have not really seen peace on earth as a result of our numbers. But here is what I have seen. Germany was in a state of mass hypnosis during Hitler's reign, and, traveling to China and then coming back here has made me see that America is in a state of mass hypnosis now. I don't know why that is, but could large numbers of people meditating have that effect? Meditation is a good thing, and it is neutral. But it apparently can be used to vastly different effects when we are talking about societies, rather than individuals. Talking to my physics teacher, Dr. Droste, I heard all the things I'm hearing here in Ff. about meditation and about enlightenment, and the stories in both cases range from the ridiculous to the sublime. It is not a stupid comparison, the comparison between America now and Hitler's Germany then. We are torturing people. And that may only be the beginning (those of you who think American concentration camps are too bizarre for belief should just Google them--they were too bizarre for belief in Germany too. But the American and Canadian residential schools for Native Americans were essentially death camps for children and served as a model for Hitler's camps). I hope whoever said that the evil has been defeated at some cosmic level is right, but I sure don't see the effects of it in real time on planet earth as long as there are prisoners suffering at American hands in Abu Ghraib. I see the same indifference to those things here in America as there was in Nazi Germany. That is the comparison I am making, and it is not stupid. a off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please remind me of what the limit is. Thanks, 35 post limit per week. You go girl ! OffWorld Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S., Angela, you're up to 27 posts. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 AM Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Andrew Cohen Quote of the Week - Serious Spiritual Practice
I have become a real fan of both Andrew and his buddy, Ken Wilber. They put out a magazine called What is Enlightenment?. It has some terrific interviews and articles about all the questions that come up in this list. Andrew runs a teaching center in Lennox. And its interesting following some of their newsgroup chatter. Familiar old accusations and nay-sayers. Comes with the territory. Check it out WIE.org. The magazine is a bit pricey, but I think its worth it. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting Limits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope whoever said that the evil has been defeated at some cosmic level is right, but I sure don't see the effects of it in real time on planet earth as long as there are prisoners suffering at American hands in Abu Ghraib. I see the same indifference to those things here in America as there was in Nazi Germany. Lurk: One of my favorite books, and one that I think about on a weekly basis is Initiation, by Elizibeth Haich. Beside the fact that the events in the book take place in wartime Germany, with reflections back to ancient Egypt, she does make some predictions about the future. One is that the frontier which has yet to be fully studied is planet Earth, and specifically, the interior and oceans. Second, the present century and for the next so many hundreds of years will be a time of dictators, and totalitarian regimes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also it is very non-traditional to not use Om (omkara) with the mantra. Which is even a greater controversy since MMY got the idea that it causes poverty but look at all the Indian millionaires who practice traditional mantras with Om in them. You conviniently skip the shakti and blessing from the teacher and his traditiohn behind any matra. And you may well choose to ignore a teachers instruction/advice if you want, thats your choice. Personally I have not met 1 (and I have met many) millionar or billionar for that matter in India that have practiced meditation with Om. Chanting it here and there in Temples (which they often visit) or at their pujatables in their homes yes indeed. But quiet meditation using OM - never.
