[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ 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. Seculiar society, seculiar techiques ? Oh please, it's doomed. As is democracy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. As long as you do not have to practise intgerity yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no need to postulate a Creator or another entity that is in control of their lives. They see life as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma and free will. Those two forces account for every phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, without the need for a God or another entity to be responsible for it. At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel separate from the world, or independent from it? I certainly wouldn't. My experience has shown me that they tend to feel more of a sense of inter- dependence between all sentient beings than most people who go around talking about their belief in a God and how separate He/She/It is from them. There is also no inherent belief in atheism that I am in charge of my life. I'm pretty sure than any New Orleans atheist who lived through Katrina doesn't believe that. What they are in charge of is how they handle what life throws at them. They tend, in my experience, to *take responsibility* for handling those setbacks and challenges, and neither blame God for them nor ask Him/Her/It for help in dealing with them. They just deal with them. Myself, I think it's all about preference. After 40+ years on a spiritual path, I have no need to postulate any kind of a God. I have never encountered a single phenomenon that requires the existence of a God to explain it. Therefore, using Occam's Razor, if a God is not necessary to explain the world I see around me, it is far more likely that there isn't one than that there is one. But basically, when it comes to God, I just don't care. If there is one, fine; if there isn't, fine. What I believe about the matter doesn't affect God (if there is one) one way or another, and what He/She/It (if there is one) thinks about me doesn't affect me one way or another. My perception -- at every level of state of consciousness I have ever experience, which covers quite a range -- is that no God is necessary to explain how the world looks from that POV. So why waste time thinking about one? Others feel differently, that's fine in my book. They can base their lives on the belief that they aren't in control of them all they want. And guess what...if that's what you believe, that's what will happen. If you believe that God does everything and that you don't have much of a choice in the matter, you'll probably sit around on your ass most of your life waiting for Him/Her/It *to* do something, to show you a sign or help out or take care of these problems for me. I call it the Beam me up, Scotty theory of spirit- uality. *Scotty* is in charge, not me. It's all up to Scotty, and all I can do is praise him and hope that he beams me to the right place. Sorry, not my idea of fun, or of a productive way of living one's life. But your mileage may vary. 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[nality] highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' And, if you are right and he is wrong, that is GOD doing all that. Curtis doesn't have a CHOICE, right? He's just a meat puppet doing the will of God. So it's GOD who is saying these things, according to what you believe, not Curtis. Curtis, in the view that I think you're trying to promote, *has* no individuality or individual free will with which *TO* say or think any of these things. God is doing it all, is sitting there with His hand up Curtis' shirt using him as a kind of Howdy Doody puppet, throwing His voice and making it seem as if Curtis is saying these things. Right? I mean, if you really believe the things you're saying, that's the bottom line, right? So by complain- ing about or taking issue with the things that Curtis says, YOU ARE BITCHING ABOUT GOD. My advice to you, given your belief system, is to lighten up, dude...or He might decide to smite you. My advice to Curtis is to keep thinking for himself, because he obviously still can. [ The preceding was just a fun little rant over coffee, not a real
[FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
I received a full slice of cake SC blessed that was being passed out- doesn't that count as an Enlightening Experience? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But are SC's enlightened status as experienced by you and his dick play as experienced by someone else somehow mutually exclusive? I don't think they are. And also, what do you mean when you say you received full enlightenment from him? --- pranamoocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe in these rumors at all. I received full enlightenment from him in NYC in 1975. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- amarnath anatol_zinc@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. . my highest respects to a beautiful God-Realized being. I attended a few of his peace concerts and always felt His Deep Peace and Love in my heart a friend of mine, and his wife and daughter, were his disciples and the personal guidance that they received, even while meditating at home, was very impressive. Sri Chinmoy was a wonderful personal guru, if one resonated with Him. I read just a few of his books that resonated with me; they were extremely helpful. A unique God-Realized life well lived only to be admired, respected and loved as a beautiful expression of the Self. Om Shanti, anatol Yeah, but what about all his dick play? There's a zen koan for ya to chew on. 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] Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC 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] Flaccid Mind Syndrome (was Re: Ode to Intentional Character Building)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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: Bronte, Since you clearly didn't get the point I was trying to make earlier, here's an example of it, in your own words. In this post you are *trying* to present something you feel is inspiring, a nice poem. Laudable. But you can't even do *that* without flaming someone: Zombie aspirants, read this and weep. A lot of people in the world are afflicted, in my opinion, with Flaccid Mind Syndrome. They have come to believe that bitching about something they con- sider negative is the same thing as doing something positive. It isn't. It's just being lazy. *Anyone* can complain, and find things to bitch about. But it's a different order of thinking to suggest solutions for problems instead of affixing blame for the problems, to present new ideas instead of criticizing the old ones. It's *just* preference on my part, not an attempt to declare some kind of rule or should on others, but I find myself far more impressed by those who are able to present solutions than those who harp on and on and on and on and on and on about problems. I find myself more drawn to those who seem to have new ideas than those who seem to have made a career out of badrapping the old ones. They (the ones who don't fall into the trap of believing that criticizing the negative is positivity) can still get it up mentally, in my opinion. Those who keep bashing away at all the things they think are wrong without ever suggesting something right are like guys waving around a limp dick and trying to convince everyone they've got a hardon. 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] To Hugh/ Re: Links between New Age and Naziism -- in Fairfield?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hugh wrote: If you are seriously interested in human origins a much better place to start research would be the books of Richard Dawkins, try the Blind Watchmaker or River out of Eden A good understanding of evolution is an essential starting place before considering the tripe tossed out by uneducated new age gurus. Bronte writes: Hugh, have you ever READ Sitchen? I don't think so, because if you had you would know what a scholar he is -- to the point of being knitpicky boring as hell. He is esteemed in his field, archeology -- no New Ager. And he makes a very strong case, from archeological evidence up the gazoo (it fills 12 or so books) that mankind's origins are extraterrestrial. I get that you're a fact-loving guy, and I like that. But I like Angela more. You go further than others but drop the curtain at looking at certain possibilities (like alien dna, like the dhali-lama radio connection) because -- ? They challenge your assumptions? Angela doesn't stop at the assumptions, she keeps going. I have a feeling nothing would stop her. Angela - don't be Vaj's soulmate - be mine! __ The human genome has been mapped, it took ten years and revealed no strange unexplainable manipulation, it is the same stuff as everything else on earth is made from. Life started once on this planet (and survived) all cells from all living things are fundamentally identical. If Sitchen was right don't you think someone else would have noticed? I just googled Sitchen and found an extract from one of his supposedly well researched books, he claims life couldn't have started on earth as it is all the same. Surely, he reasons, if it were a large chemical soup there would be many different kinds of life? He's half right, when life arose there were more than one type of DNA, ours won the battle but not without being invaded by another type, we know this because they both replicate in our cells but only one type passes on to the next generation. Life started once on this planet and survived, it's the only explanation. And I got it from high school it doesn't say much about his standards of evidence. I have little doubt I could go through the entire book and correct every mistake in minutes, I often get fringe science out of the library and do just that. My best advice is to read the stuff that is empirical, like Dawkins, Hawking, Deutsch, it hasn't become the consensus reality for nothing but because Sitchen and co don't survive scrutiny. I don't drop the curtain at any possibilities, I will consider anything but there has to be a bit of evidence, when all you find is evidence to the contrary about something why persevere? I have read Von Daniken, David Icke, in fact I am half way through the time loop book, some of it is very interesting. I shall post a review later today. Hey here's an idea, I read the book you recommended why don't you read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker or River out of Eden and tell me what you think, I predict you will be highly impressed.
[FairfieldLife] KT: examples of 'aadi' (= beginning) in the meaning 'etc.'
YS III 23 (or 24): maitryaadiSu balaani (without sandhi: maitrii; aadiSu balaani) Where in YS can one find a suutra that contains an enumeration, whose beginning (aadi) is 'maitrii' (~ my tree)? Well, at least I 32 seems to have such a list: maitriikaruNaamuditopekshaNaaM sukhaduHkhapuNyaapuNyavishhayaaNaaM bhaavanaatashchittaprasaadanam. (maitrii-karuNaa-muditaa; upekSaNaam; sukha-duHkha-puNya-apuNya- viSayaaNaam; bhaavanaataH; citta-prasaadanam.) maitrI f. friendship , friendliness , benevolence , good will karuNaa f. pity , compassion muditaa f. joy , gladness , complacency Why is 'aadi' in locative plural (aadiSu)? Sanskrit locative corresponds for instance English prepositions 'in' and 'on', etc. In this suutra locative implies application of saMyama into 'maitrii', etc. Taimni: (By performing saMyama) on friendliness etc. (comes) strength (of the quality). (Example of 'aadi' in its primary meaning 'beginning': aadi-buddha perceived in the beginning )
[FairfieldLife] The Judo Theory of Social Change
I've done this rap before, and people were bored by it then, too. :-) But since, given Jung's proj- ection theory, the person I'm preaching to is probably myself, I'm going to give myself a good talking to anyway. Lord knows I need it. :-) It's about this notion that there are things *wrong* with the world, and that many of them need to be changed. Absolutely *nothing* wrong with this; I tend to resonate with and identify with folks like Gandhi who devoted their lives *to* correcting a few of the things about the world that they thought were wrong. But I tend to identify with the guys *like* Gandhi, who presented new ideas of what is *right*, and didn't spend all their time (and waste all their energy) focusing on the things that are wrong. And it's all about Judo. I studied it for a time when I was young, and even got fairly good at it. And one of the things you learn from Judo is that when you're in a match with someone, what you *long* for is an opponent who spends all of his time and his energy focused on being *against* you. They're the easiest to beat. Why? Because they're off balance. All of their attention is focused on aggressive moves, moves *against* the opponent. And that, almost by defi- nition, throws them off balance. They shove at you, trying to throw you to the mat, and all you have to do is step out of the way and stick your foot out and *they* are the ones on the mat. That's how I view politics and the world of social change. A lot of politicians (and armchair politic- ians) spend most, if not all, of their time talking about what's *wrong* with the world, or with the current system, or with the people who are running it. Whenever I meet one of these people, I tend to say to them, Yeah, I get that. You're against this and this and this and that. Good on you. Now, what are you *for*? The answer is usually stony silence. They've never even thought about it. And that's why so many revolutions and movements for social change fail. They're only *against*. They don't know what they're *for*. And so they are in exactly the same position, IMO, as the Judoka who is constantly pushing against the opponent trying to throw him, and in reality is throwing himself off balance and putting himself in a weak position. What happens with revolutions? Historically, the worst thing that could ever happen to them is that they succeed. Almost every one that *has* succeeded has then imploded on itself. The fiery, passionate rebels focus for years on getting rid of the Bad Guys in power, and finally succeed. After a few purges, they get rid of every one of them. And then they look around and think, What next? And, because they've never given any *thought* to what comes next, they start looking around for a new enemy, someone else to be *against*. Most often, historically, that is members of their own revolution, who suddenly become the new enemy, and have to be purged. That's why I write off any politician who is only *against* things, and can never bring himself to talk about any of the things he's *for*. He's weak, and off balance, and very possibly doesn't even *know* what he's for. He's never had to. The voting public are such suckers for righteous anger and blame that they'll vote him into office just on the basis of what he's *against*. But not me. I'm waiting for a politician who is willing to take a stand and tell us what he's *for*. Because if he wins, he might just have some notion of what to do once he's in office. The politicians who are only *against* won't have a clue. That's why things never change. The newly- elected anti politicians just become the next generation of Bad Guys. I sorta feel the same way about criticisms of spirit- ual practice and religion. These things are easy targets; much of the world's misery has been caused by them, and much of it still is. But as noble as it is on one level to be *against* some of the lesser practices and beliefs one sees in religions and spiritual traditions -- and as EASY as it is to take that approach and fall into the rut of Flaccid Mind Syndrome and rail against them -- I'm lookin' for the individuals who can suggest a different approach, one that might work better. Those guys and gals might just have a clue, because they've put some thought into what they're *for*. The ones who are only *against* -- give me a break. Flaccid minds the lot of them. So, with the political season upon us in America and everyone and their dog talking about what's wrong with the world, I'm waiting for someone who is some- what more balanced and is willing to tell us what they think might be more right. And in the realm of criticizing religion, I'm equally unimpressed with the Professional Atheists who rail against religion and the ex spiritual junkies who are willing to talk, talk, talk our ears off about everything that's so wrong with things as they are. I'm waiting for someone who is willing to go out on a limb and suggest a few things
[FairfieldLife] Posting totals...
...for those who have never figured out how to use a Search engine like the one at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/msearch_adv even if it *is* slightly inaccurate (consistently one post too low this week for most people, because some posts weren't indexed properly and thus don't show up in the search even though they are there in Message View). Judy - 35/36 and out Angela - 36/37 and out Jim - 34/35 and out Vaj - 37/38 and out Bronte - 34/35 and out I don't think anyone else is perilously close to going over the posting limit. Carry on...
[FairfieldLife] Re: KT: examples of 'aadi' (= beginning) in the meaning 'etc.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YS III 23 (or 24): maitryaadiSu balaani (without sandhi: maitrii; aadiSu balaani) Attempt at literal translation: In friendliness-beginnings strengths.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya, Illusion. Some people would call Shankaras Advaita a concealed atheism, but its very much my position. Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no need to postulate a Creator or another entity that is in control of their lives. They see life as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma and free will. Those two forces account for every phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, without the need for a God or another entity to be responsible for it. May I note that ist interesting you call 'free will' a force. And I don't think its just a semantic mistake: Thats what Buddhism says, everything is just the interplay of forces. And mind you they say the same thing about the individual ego, its just a composite, nothing of an entity in itself. A composite of different elements (dathus I believe) held together by different forces (karma and Samsara). This is very much what I say: We are not an entity, we are a play of forces. The 'I' is an illusion which takes authorship of this interplay, and at the same time, this wrong identification is part of the play. There is no I doing it, its part of the play of forces. At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel separate from the world, or independent from it? No. I certainly wouldn't. My experience has shown me that they tend to feel more of a sense of inter- dependence between all sentient beings than most people who go around talking about their belief in a God and how separate He/She/It is from them. I don't believe God is separate from us. We are totally God or we are part of God, either view is ikay with me. There is also no inherent belief in atheism that I am in charge of my life. I'm pretty sure than any New Orleans atheist who lived through Katrina doesn't believe that. What they are in charge of is how they handle what life throws at them. But thats what I mean. I deny that they are in charge of how to handle what life throws at them. I mean that thee are several levels of how o look at that. At an immediate level, thats what I would advise anybody to do as well: Just act in a responsible manner. Of course. But I believe that whether you follow such advise or fool around or how exactly you think what is responsible is not really in your hands. Its guided by forces not known to you. They tend, in my experience, to *take responsibility* for handling those setbacks and challenges, and neither blame God for them nor ask Him/Her/It for help in dealing with them. They just deal with them. A lot of people blame God, even if they are atheists. Or the blame life or whatever. OTOH people who are believers may just act very responsible and not blame God, as they feel it to be a test or they feel some other ways of support from God. Myself, I think it's all about preference. After 40+ years on a spiritual path, I have no need to postulate any kind of a God. I have never encountered a single phenomenon that requires the existence of a God to explain it. Therefore, using Occam's Razor, if a God is not necessary to explain the world I see around me, it is far more likely that there isn't one than that there is one. I totally understand your argument. When in young adolescence, I would call myself atheist as well. I was more a passive atheist or an agnostic, but I wouldn't kow at the time. With this I started TM, and read the Science of Being, very much swallowing the Vedantic concept of the impersonal, very much not taking God references in the book serious. But it was experiences that made me accept the God concept. Like somebody else here related, I was 'touched' by something in meditation along with a sudden certainty that this was pertaining to God, and that God actually existed. I simply believed this experience. I had more experiences like that, pertaining to a personal Godhead, in one case in its unmistakable female expression. Whatever my philosophic mindset may be, there is now way I could deny these experiences. I couldn't really interpret them any different, because personal Godhead is he very content of these experiences. And, at the time they were not affirmative of my beliefs but contrary to them. The only way I could interpret them differently is to call them delusional aberations of
[FairfieldLife] Chip's translation of 'saMyama'?
Chip seems to translate 'saMyama' to 'focusing with perfect discipline'. Example: By focusing with perfect discipline on the body's relationship to the ether, and developing coalesced contemplation on the lightness of cotton, one can travel through space. I wonder how much that translation of 'saMyama' is due to Chip's apparently being a fan of Buddhism... http://www.arlingtoncenter.org/Sanskrit-English.pdf (p. 53)
[FairfieldLife] Teach Your Friends to Meditate
After 30 years I still think that TM is a brilliant Technique. I leave the rest MMY, TMO, etc. All bija mantras are Tantric,and they all have variations depending on which part of India the teacher comes from- Lakshmi Bija is pronounced Shring,Shreeng, and sometimes Shrim in the North, whereas it is pronounced Shreem in the South. Saraswati bija is Aing (i-ing) in the North and Aim (I'M or I-eem), Kali bija is Kring or Kreeng in the North, and Krim (Kreem) in the South. Recently I did a TM Puja for a friend of mine who had been meditating effortlessly for 2 years with Southern version of Lakshmi Bija `Shreem,' ever since her meditations have been much deeper, and she has experienced transcending for the first time. If you would like to give a friend the benefits of meditation, the best thing you could do is to teach them to meditate by giving them your own TM mantra, and teaching them how to meditate effortlessly with it. By doing this no puja is required as they are getting the mantra with Shakti from you. For any other mantra a puja is required. The other thing I wish to say is that once a person has a mantra; it should never be changed for the rest of their life! Jai Guru Dev, Billy
[FairfieldLife] Live Webcast As Dalai Lama Receives Highest US Civilian Honour
Dear Fairfield Lifers: This Wednesday, 17th October, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be presented with a Congressional Gold Medal in Washington. You can register to watch this historic event live and find more information by going to http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/429/1/ Dear Steven This Wednesday, 17th October, His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be presented with a Congressional Gold Medal in Washington. You can register to watch this historic event live and find more information by going to http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/429/1/ The award, perhaps the most significant international tribute to the Dalai Lama since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, will be presented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a ceremony in the Capitol building at which President George W. Bush and Laura Bush will be present. This will be the first time that a US President has appeared in public with the Dalai Lama. The International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) has organized a huge event on the West Lawn of the Capitol building to precede and follow the ceremony. This will include a public address from His Holiness, Tibetan cultural performances and remarks by Nancy Pelosi and long- time Tibet supporter Richard Gere. The webcast will begin at 11.00am Washington time (1.00am Thursday morning Australian Eastern Time), with the awards ceremony itself commencing two hours later. Register for the webcast at http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/429/1/ The coming year may be crucial to the future of Tibet. The enormous attention on China in the run up to the Olympics in Beijing next August provides an unprecedented opportunity to hold China to account for its ongoing human rights abuses. You can help make this a pivotal year in the struggle for a free Tibet. Keep an eye on the ATC website – www.atc.org.au - for ways to get involved. It's Time for Tibet. Paul Bourke Executive Officer
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:04 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the Maniprabha's comment on this sutra: These siddhis [that is] the Vividness of the subtle senses and the like in the case of one devoted to samadhi, (the fruit of which is final bliss), are obstacles, [that is,] impediments. Accordingly he who desires liberation overlooks them. For his task is not accomplished, even if he have ten thousand perfections, unless he have a complete enlightenment of self. Seems like he haven't been reading the fourth paada. The first suutra sez: ...samaadhi-jaaH siddhayaH. ... which could be translated to 'siddhis are born of (or: the result of) samaadhi'. Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:54 AM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Oct 13, 2007, at 7:37 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: Don't do this, be careful about this, watch how this and that goes, warning against this...Absent common sense, why be so concerned about this practice and that? Such thinking reeks of dogma to me. LOL, no it's not dogma Jim, it's the collected wisdom of sages across the ages--and my own personal experience as well. I'd like to hear more about your personal experience, then, because you are always quoting others or mentioning the experiences of others, but not correlating such experiences with your own. I don't recall you ever speaking about your experiences in this way here on FFL. No, I don't typically talk about my own experiences. Vaj has for years been happy to try to put the experiences of others down and trying to create doubts. No wonder he does not want to describe his own (lack of) experiences. The truth is what is important and that is often obscured in traditions that don't come from a pure lineal tradition. If you want to flaunt your experiences in public, that's of course your business. I'll continue to do what's appropriate. There is a state beyond the discussion of experiences. Once that need diminishes, it's superfluous to talk about meditative experiences any longer accept under certain circumstances.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- 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. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Teach Your Friends to Meditate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, biosoundbill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After 30 years I still think that TM is a brilliant Technique. I leave the rest MMY, TMO, etc. All bija mantras are Tantric,and they all have variations depending on which part of India the teacher comes from- Lakshmi Bija is pronounced Shring,Shreeng, and sometimes Shrim in the North, whereas it is pronounced Shreem in the South. Saraswati bija is Aing (i-ing) in the North and Aim (I'M or I-eem), Kali bija is Kring or Kreeng in the North, and Krim (Kreem) in the South. Recently I did a TM Puja for a friend of mine who had been meditating effortlessly for 2 years with Southern version of Lakshmi Bija `Shreem,' ever since her meditations have been much deeper, and she has experienced transcending for the first time. If you would like to give a friend the benefits of meditation, the best thing you could do is to teach them to meditate by giving them your own TM mantra, and teaching them how to meditate effortlessly with it. By doing this no puja is required as they are getting the mantra with Shakti from you. For any other mantra a puja is required. The other thing I wish to say is that once a person has a mantra; it should never be changed for the rest of their life! Jai Guru Dev, Billy While I don't agree with a word of this, the post itself is an example of what is often missing here on Fairfield Life. It was a positive suggestion for how -- as the poster sees it -- people could benefit their lives and those of others. And there was not one word of putdown or criticism of others or of other points of view in the post. Again, I don't happen to agree with the poster's stance, but it sure was a breath of fresh air to read such a post, especially after the last few days.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: RIP Sri Chinmoy
No, that's a piece of cake! But I think the paradox is one that is found with MMY and other gurus too. We see and experience one side of them, but there can be another side too that is rather disturbing to our understanding of Realization. I don't think one negates the other. I'm sure SC was the catalyst for many people having deep authentic spiritual experiences. And I'm also sure his sexual behavior is true also. Go figure. --- pranamoocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I received a full slice of cake SC blessed that was being passed out- doesn't that count as an Enlightening Experience? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But are SC's enlightened status as experienced by you and his dick play as experienced by someone else somehow mutually exclusive? I don't think they are. And also, what do you mean when you say you received full enlightenment from him? --- pranamoocher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe in these rumors at all. I received full enlightenment from him in NYC in 1975. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- amarnath anatol_zinc@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Died Thursday at the age of 72 of a heart attack. . my highest respects to a beautiful God-Realized being. I attended a few of his peace concerts and always felt His Deep Peace and Love in my heart a friend of mine, and his wife and daughter, were his disciples and the personal guidance that they received, even while meditating at home, was very impressive. Sri Chinmoy was a wonderful personal guru, if one resonated with Him. I read just a few of his books that resonated with me; they were extremely helpful. A unique God-Realized life well lived only to be admired, respected and loved as a beautiful expression of the Self. Om Shanti, anatol Yeah, but what about all his dick play? There's a zen koan for ya to chew on. 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] Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC 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 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] Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
[FairfieldLife] Ann Coulter is selling another book - needs publicity
Coulter: Jews will be perfected when they become Christians. See image: http://www.bartcop.com/coulter-eva-braun.jpg Appearing on The Big Idea with host Donny Deutsch on Monday, she said Christians were tolerant of racial diversity but that it would be a lot easier for Jews if they were to become Christians. Deutsch, who described himself as a practicing Jew on the show, was clearly dismayed by the remarks, which he called hateful and antisemitic. Story continues below #8595;advertisement In her defense, Coulter apologized for the remarks and said they were misinterpreted. I don't think you should take it that way (as offensive), but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament, she said. Deutsch told Adweek magazine that he had invited Coulter on to discuss her brand strategy but that the topic drifted into politics. After Deutsch was offended by Coulter's remarks, he said, I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions. After the comments were made on the late-night cable show, they were picked up by several online magazines and began gaining momentum in the blogosphere. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21257498/ - What a way to make a living, eh? - And the right wing freaks *love* her act.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gore Derangement Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/297p42 Indeed: [It was] noted on the first few minutes of Fox News Sunday yesterday just how angry the conservative Republicans were about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Kristol disparaged Gore and the Nobel prize itself, saying it's a prize given by bloviators to a bloviator. Charles Krauthammer insisted the award goes to people whose politics are either anti-American or anti-Bush, and that's why [Gore] won it. These pundits were obviously bitter, much the same way National Review's Iain Murray was late last week, when he suggested Gore share his award with Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance in a September video harangue. (Apparently, to accept global warming is to embrace a terrorist philosophy.) It led Paul Krugman to ask a good question: What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane? The headline on Krugman's piece is entirely appropriate: Gore Derangement Syndrome. The whole derangement syndrome phenomenon stems from an increasingly common problem when contempt for a leader strays from simple political opposition to irrational, reflexive antagonism. If so-and-so says day, I'll say night, even if the sun is shining. It's more important to fight the perceived opponent than to make sense. And for far too long, that's exactly how the right has approached Gore and the science on global warming. The evidence must be wrong, because Gore believes it. The Nobel Peace Prize must be worthless, because Gore won it. These aren't arguments. They're sad and nonsensical temper-tantrums. Read Krugman's piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ref=opinion Other links here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/15/krugman-gore-drives-right-wingers-insane/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
Off, When you dismiss Angela's mind, your reputation just slips another notch -- if that's possible -- in the estimations of most here. Her posts are dizzy deep, awe-thentic, and openly the works of a lover of words, wisps, and wonders. With her level of expertise, no one here is going to be able to corral her with jibes as goofmucky and simplistic, as your one d, kiddie-lect can muster. Not that she can't be wrong, not that you couldn't be the first here to see such, but it is certain that everyone here knows that the likes of you are not going to know what's behind the high walls she's scaled -- those are precincts you might never grok, but are doomed, it seems, to shoot the equivalent of paint balls at -- no real impact but there's you being smug about each laughable lashing-out -- an Off-put(ing) mess of garish coloring -- your bottom line troll profit. I see you as some hulking Bubba bragging about a splotch that merely a gentle rain can remove. Angela, the chink scanners are chutzpa chumps. It takes a while and much too much attention-given to see them for what they are. You're a tough hombre, so, no need for me at your six, but I like jumping on Off cuz he's so easily squished -- like one ear on a Mickey Mouse balloon -- and then he looks so funny when his other parts correspondingly expand. Off, start breathing helium and float will ya? It'd be nice to see Mickey One Big Ear floating around above us, and your rodent thoughts would then be all the more comical. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ 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 feste37@ 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Andrew Cohen Quote of the Week - Serious Spiritual Practice
Andrew Cohen, talk about an egotistic, abusive shadow side! But I'll also acknowledge his spiritual side too. I've read his books, bought and listened to many hours of his tapes, and even had a subscription to WIE. But boy, does he cast a big mother of a shadow. Second only to Da Free John! --- Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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] Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was a request from Chris Busch of the David Lynch Foundation as a correction to the piece that I had forwarded you about the school principal of the year award: The school principal did not publicly attribute his school's success, nor his achievement of the National Principal of the Year award, to TM. That doesn't mean he's not thrilled with the program he is. He expressed his support on the video clip that was included with the email even though the school is not identified by name on the video a decision the school favors at this point. It's important though that we be accurate. In addition, it is important that we preserve the identity of the new school projects while they are still new and a little tender. After a while, when the program is well- established they will be happy to proclaim their implementation of a school- wide Quiet Time period featuring TM practice. For now, it is better not to stir the sleeping elephants. I appreciate your informing anyone to whom you sent the email and asking them to do the same. We collected some wonderful interviews of faculty and students reporting on their experiences that we wanted to make available while preserving the identity of the school for now until the program is stronger and better established. The school isn't identified by name in the video. This is how the school and principal wish to proceed as well. They are partners in this entire process. The school projects that are very well-established have had no problem being identified publicly Kingsbury Day School and Ideal Academy in DC, and Nataki in Detroit. There are more that will step out before long. Chris *** The stress-free schools link to the California TM school has been disabled: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/california_school.html there is another link which talks about TM in schools, but all private/charter, so it's clear that the TMO is trying to keep the SF public middle school's TM program hush-hush, as Chris, the Lynch foundation spokesman clearly states above: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/stressfreeschools.html All directly involved are tip-toeing through the elephants to avoid stirring up third-party opposition to public recognition of TM's good effect in this public school but that doesn't address the future prospects of teaching TM broadly, which will require a secular organization teaching TM as a secular technique, which will happen soon, as a response of the need of the time.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4)
[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: [snip] The stress-free schools link to the California TM school has been disabled: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/california_school.html there is another link which talks about TM in schools, but all private/charter, so it's clear that the TMO is trying to keep the SF public middle school's TM program hush-hush, as Chris, the Lynch foundation spokesman clearly states above: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/stressfreeschools.html All directly involved are tip-toeing through the elephants to avoid stirring up third-party opposition to public recognition of TM's good effect in this public school but that doesn't address the future prospects of teaching TM broadly, which will require a secular organization teaching TM as a secular technique, which will happen soon, as a response of the need of the time. How are they going to teach and maintain TM as a secular technique while using the Puja to initiate? Surely they're not going to do away with the Puja, eh?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
In a message dated 10/16/07 7:07:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Teach Your Friends to Meditate
Billy, Let me tell you a tale about mantras. When I first heard about TM, I read The Science of Being and the Art of Living, and I wanted to start meditating before I even had gone to a first lecture, so I made up my own mantra. It was ridiculous what I did: I said the words I am aloud as I drove to work each morning. So much for my understanding of the SBAL, eh? Well, that phrase kept changing on me into its contraction I'm. I couldn't stop it from doing so -- just a natural thingy for spoken words to slide into a more compressed manifestation. When I finally started TM, I got my real mantra, but I was having a problem with my it -- cuz, like my made up mantra, it kept changing into another sound -- a phoneme was being added to my mantra's end, and it bothered me so much that I stopped meditating at the Arcata, CA SCI course in 1971 and told MMY that, and he sent me to Casey to get checked. (Yeah, I was told to go get checked -- I'm laughing.) Well, one doesn't speak aloud one's mantra, but I had to tell Casey what was going on with my mantra, so I made up another word-sound, told him that word-sound, and then said, now imagine that this made-up word changes into this new word-sound with this new ending. Casey told me something wonderful -- that MMY had said that the mantra is like a paint brush -- even if one loses many hairs one can still paint. Just a faint impulse. Like that like that. It did the trick and I started meditating again with a carefree heart. Later, after the SCI course in Fuggi Fonte was over, MMY gave us an ear phone technique that was, well, an extensive litany to recite. And MMY said, this is like carrying an armful of fruits, not so bad if a few drop. I liked the wiggle room! So, there's the tale, now here's the kicker: 1. The first mantra I made up turned out to be a mantra given to me by MMY, 2. the second made-up mantra turned out to be a mantra given to me by MMY, 3. then I got a real mantra given to me, 4. then that mantra kept changing into, yep, another mantra that was later given to me by MMY. 5. then the word-sound I made up to give Casey as an example-sound turned out to be a mantra given to me by MMY. 6. then the word-sound made up for Casey was changed by me to illustrate my problem with my secret real mantra and that changed new example-sound turned out to be a mantra given to me by MMY. So I knew but did not know I knew SIX MANTRAS before I became an initiator. And this bugs me so deeply, cuz I lurves da synchrony of life. And get this, can you imagine Casey trying to check me and having me tell him TWO made up mantras that he knew but-I-didn't were MMY real mantras? I don't know how he kept a straight face or not blurt out in wonder that I was intuiting secrets of MMY. This and the fact that Casey had the flu at the time and literally checked me laying in bed and moaning out softly Did you notice that thoughts come without effort? Hee hee, I gotta send the above to Casey, maybe he'll remember the scenario. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, biosoundbill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After 30 years I still think that TM is a brilliant Technique. I leave the rest MMY, TMO, etc. All bija mantras are Tantric,and they all have variations depending on which part of India the teacher comes from- Lakshmi Bija is pronounced Shring,Shreeng, and sometimes Shrim in the North, whereas it is pronounced Shreem in the South. Saraswati bija is Aing (i-ing) in the North and Aim (I'M or I-eem), Kali bija is Kring or Kreeng in the North, and Krim (Kreem) in the South. Recently I did a TM Puja for a friend of mine who had been meditating effortlessly for 2 years with Southern version of Lakshmi Bija `Shreem,' ever since her meditations have been much deeper, and she has experienced transcending for the first time. If you would like to give a friend the benefits of meditation, the best thing you could do is to teach them to meditate by giving them your own TM mantra, and teaching them how to meditate effortlessly with it. By doing this no puja is required as they are getting the mantra with Shakti from you. For any other mantra a puja is required. The other thing I wish to say is that once a person has a mantra; it should never be changed for the rest of their life! Jai Guru Dev, Billy
Re: [FairfieldLife] Teach Your Friends to Meditate
In a message dated 10/16/07 6:12:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you would like to give a friend the benefits of meditation, the best thing you could do is to teach them to meditate by giving them your own TM mantra, and teaching them how to meditate effortlessly with it. By doing this no puja is required as they are getting the mantra with Shakti from you. For any other mantra a puja is required. The other thing I wish to say is that once a person has a mantra; it should never be changed for the rest of their life! Jai Guru Dev, It is my understanding, and this could be a TMO scare tactic for all I know, that if you change the instructions on teaching, you become that person's guru and take on the responsibility for their karma, where as if you teach exactly as instructed, the originator of the instructions has that responsibility. Just a thought to consider. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: more meditating school info with my apology to chris
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: [snip] The stress-free schools link to the California TM school has been disabled: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/california_school.html there is another link which talks about TM in schools, but all private/charter, so it's clear that the TMO is trying to keep the SF public middle school's TM program hush-hush, as Chris, the Lynch foundation spokesman clearly states above: http://www.stressfreeschools.org/video/stressfreeschools.html All directly involved are tip-toeing through the elephants to avoid stirring up third-party opposition to public recognition of TM's good effect in this public school but that doesn't address the future prospects of teaching TM broadly, which will require a secular organization teaching TM as a secular technique, which will happen soon, as a response of the need of the time. How are they going to teach and maintain TM as a secular technique while using the Puja to initiate? Surely they're not going to do away with the Puja, eh? from #151229: 'Like a surgeon who scrubs for surgery outside of the surgical suite, away from the patient, the TM teacher can prepare for teaching TM by performing the puja privately, in an adjoining room.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 7:07:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
In a message dated 10/16/07 9:15:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. _Messages in this topic _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/151774;_ylc=X3oDMTM4amw0YXI0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMx NzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQwNTEEdH BjSWQDMTUxNzc0) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYXRkM2ltBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc 3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQ wNTE-?act=replymessageNum=151812) | _Start _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN3BuMzBnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3 Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MjU0NDA1MQ--) Well obviously those *thousands* weren't of much help to Al concerning those nine points. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- 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!! Yes. Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illussiory character of our selves. I put the decision making into 'Gods' hand as this is a convenient term most people can relate to. I don't mean to prove the existence of a God by denying free-will. Rather I point out that an atheist has unproven belief systems, he is hardly aware of: His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio. 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 ? Its Christianity. Doesn't fit for me. Why do you decide the way you decide? Why do you think the way you think, and why do others think differently than you? Then if you decide the wrong way, you have to go to eternal hell, that's the conclusion of religious free will. According to Christianities free will Curtis is doomed because he is an atheist. According to my theory of determination its simlpy a phase in his evolutionary development, and there is no guilt only different levels of understanding, and different mental and spiritual capacities. Chose what you like ;-)Everyone obviously thinks his way of thinking to be the best. But thoughts are just things that flow in the atmosphere, and we pick them up according to a feeling of resonance. That simply is there. You are not doing it, it simply happens. So there is no guilt or sin, there is just an evolutionary development. Understanding happens, its not something you can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis! Please see the reference in verse 22: PYS 3.1.4 This is the Chapter followed by the explanation how siddhis are developed through Samyama. It is Vaj ignoring the context here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to.
[FairfieldLife] David Icke - the verdict
Well, my verdict anyway. There's no denying it's an interesting book Bronte, I would say twenty percent fascinating and eighty percent erm.. we'll get to that. First the interesting parts. He has unearthed some revealing recent history, all the stuff about the UK and US governments is probably all true and shows up some pretty disgraceful behaviour. But not much I didn't already know as I like to keep up on that sort of thing. British agents executing Irish civilians, corruption, cronyism, all of it depressingly true. The parts about Jewish history, Israel and zionism are fascinating but would withstand a bit of checking I should think. I can see why the ADL don't like him but if it's true we should be allowed to discuss it. The subliminal messages in advertising is a bit I enjoyed, I've always avoided ads like the plague, I used to be a media analyst and know just how much of what we read or watch is there simply because someone wants you to see it. The problem I have with this evidence is the conclusions he draws from it. History is just one damn awful thing after another. When I look into the past I see the same things Ickey does, an endless succession of wars, genocide, misery etc. The thing I don't see is that it all has to be part of some huge conspiracy. I think all conspiracy theories start in the same way, some people just can't accept the ugly truth of a situation eg; JFK can't have been shot by a loner with a mail order rifle, Lady Di can't have died in mere car crash, 9/11 can't have been planned by a few guys in desert somewhere. The list is endless, all of them turn out to be wrong, most recently the 9/11 theories have signally failed to stand up to scrutiny. No intercept planes were launched because they didn't know what was going on until it was all over. Bin Ladens family were flown out of the states sure, but they didn't know where Osama was, he had been exiled from Saudi for years. And missiles projecting holographic planes round themselves? Jesus! All human societies past and present reflect human nature. Part amazing and part dreadful. Ickey doesn't seem keen to accept that and has to join everything together into a massive history wide/planet wide plot to control and destroy. The human race doesn't need any help starting wars, it's what we do. But he doesn't stop there of course, it is all controlled by giant shape shifting reptiles. Talk about pushing the blame away. His (I hate to call it evidence) ideas for this are bizarre to say the least. Humans never inter-bred with aliens it simply couldn't happen. We can't inter-breed with chimps our closest relatives let alone crocodiles. Let alone alien crocodiles! It's just so awful to read I feel sorry for him. But then he would say I'm being narrow minded or brainwashed. I wouldn't mind but it makes no sense at all. He selectively picks from prehistoric writing and translates literally when they were all just creation myths. We are so amazing we must be from the gods is a common enough theme that says more about people than it says about reality. Perhaps there is another fear where all his ideas come from, a refusal to accept the boring fact of evolution by natural selection. Finally we get sigh to atlantis. The fact he's included Plato's allegorical island finally destroys what little credibilty he had as a researcher. There is no mention of atlantis anywhere in ancient writing other than in Plato, and the story was set at a time when no advanced civilisation existed, he made it up. To use this and lemuria as the starting point for the reptile invasion of earth says it all, it never happened either. But of course we don't really exist we are part of the matrix, an illusion. I could go on about it but you don't need to think too much about this... LSD only works because we believe it will erm.. so if I was to spike someones drink with acid it would have no effect? Or this, I could turn into a double decker bus if I wanted too? This, Cats jump about seemingly after nothing because they percieve a wider reality? And this, We only put on weight when eating junk food because we believe we will? He also has the usual complete non-understanding of quantum physics that seems to infest the new age. Apart from the aforementioned good bits you could go through every page like this and pick out the howlers. The guy seriously needs an editor, maybe I should volunteer. I often bump into David at waterloo station as he lives just down the coast from me. And that is the main reason I think his ideas to be rubbish. If he was on their case surely the reptiles would have had him bumped off by now? So there you have it, I looked behind the curtain. Shame there was nothing there, but you've got to try;-) Are you going to have a read of Dawkins the Blind Watchmaker? Go on it's great, will change your life for sure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Gore's encapsulation is merely a POV which can be sniped at, but everyone on the planet knows about pollution, cuz it's right there in their faces -- thousands and thousands of chemical-disaster-zones leeching poisons into aquifers for example -- only one of literally millions of kinds of polution. Completely undeniable -- I can take any global warming naysayer to a industrial-graveyard and point to it, and that naysayer will say, Yuck. Clean this danger up! If Gore is to be successful, all the pollution will have to be cleaned up -- not just the carbon of smoke stacks and tailpipes. I once was driving in the desert. Miles of straight, flat highway and not a car in sight. But I smelled diesel fumes. Finally after about 20 minutes, I saw way way ahead of me a semi belching smoke. I was astounded that my nose had seen farther than my eyes. Now, what DON'T I SMELL? Answer: everything. In the desert, one smell was easily sensed, but in every city in the world, factories are pouring out the crud and our noses are overwhelmed into a false non-smelling-ness. This is a huge problem. Has been since the start of the industrial revolution. Only Gore has found a popular theme that has grabbed the minds of the masses. So, I'm all for Gore even if sometimes he can be proven by you to be an inconvenience. Below's an earlier post I wrote to Shemp. I talk about another car ride therein. You should read it too. Edg Shemp, Shemp, Shemp, You continue to write as if the corporate world is not dumping toxins anywhere they damned well please. Could you just do me a favor and google pollution and see if you can read even five minutes before you puke. You seem -- SEEM -- to believe that the industrial revolution's pollution has been insignificant -- socially, environmentally, financially, psychologically, and spiritually. Am I right about that or am I getting a completely wrong take on you? Shemp, listen to me. Once, I drove in a car for over an hour in Indonesia along a canal. Next to that canal, for an hour's drive remember, was every manner of cardboard-shack housing imaginable, and that canal was where they got their water, washed and dumped their filth. Toddlers playing in muck, old women over tiny fires with rusted pots, and blight in all directions. The smell alone would knock you to your knees, Shemp. I don't know how many people I passed that hour, but it was in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. All living in squalor of such hideousness that the entire Indonesian government should be hung for crimes against humanity. Hung without due process, without a trial -- this village of the damned was prima facie evidence that would have any jury making up their minds and voting for the death penalty while walking to the juryroom. That, Shemp, is the true face of the industrial revolution, and it's been going on without end since it started. It's not just about airborne soot from China, it's about the human misery we're all turning a blind eye towards. Shemp, Shemp, Shemp, what don't you understand about black lung disease, sweat shops, migrant labor, apartheid, Darfur cleansings, World War II Japanese internment camps in California, fixed elections, gerrymandering, elitism, fascism, Big Brother, and the Dresden Firebombing? The fact that global warming may or may not be connected to this pollution is not the issue -- it is merely a cause célèbre, a calling to arms, a rallying flag for the Greens who see pollution and globalism and human rights as the core issues -- not saving water front properties in Florida from the ocean rising 20 feet due to, you know, all of Antarctica melting. Shemp, you seem to be on the side of the bad guys. Say it ain't so. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 9:15:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. _Messages in this topic _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/151774;_ylc=X3oDMTM4amw0YXI0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMx NzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQwNTEEdH BjSWQDMTUxNzc0) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYXRkM2ltBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc 3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQ wNTE-?act=replymessageNum=151812) | _Start _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN3BuMzBnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. Hey there. While in India, I bought a book which was recommended here to me, the Bhagavad Gita with commentary by Madhusudana Saraswati, who was in the 16th century, a contemporary of Akbhar and a renovator of the Dasanami Order. It is because of him that Non-Brahmins are accepted into most Dasanami Orders. he was also a great Bhakta who synthezised the bhakti philosophies with Shankara Advaita. Here in verse 21 he calls samyama strongest of all disciplines This is what he says in his Invocation to the Gita. 20 Through the power of knowledge of reality (tattva-jnana) the results of actions (done in past lives) that have not commenced bearing fruit (anarabdha or sancita) get wholly destroyed, to be sure, and the results of actions (done in the present life after the dawn of knowledge) that are to bear fruit in the furure (agamini) do not accrue. 21 But because of disturbances created by the results of actions that have started bearing fruit (prarabdha), vasana (past impressions) does not get destroyed. That is eliminated through samyama, the strongest of all (the disciplines). 22. The five disciplines, viz yama (restraint) etc. (P.Y.Su 2.29) practised before become conducive to that samyama which is a triad consisting of dharana, dhyan and samadhi (see ibid. 3.1.4) I asked Vajranatha about this as he is over his posting limit. Samyama is not a bad practice by itself. It is when it is used to manifest siddhis that it causes obscuration of the natural state. In the context quoted it refers to the triad of yogic absorptions and not to cultivating of siddhis. Different context, different meaning. Other more specific references refer to the Gita and explain that samyama used for siddhis will lead to emotional and mental obscurations. Please be careful of your context as it is not a good idea to be encouraging people to use samyama to manifest siddhis! Please see the reference in verse 22: PYS 3.1.4 This is the Chapter followed by the explanation how siddhis are developed through Samyama. It is Vaj ignoring the context here. I'll have to ask him later as I only have one post left for the day. IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context. Your naivete is showing. Dangerously so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your secrets to yourselves. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational arguments and we can talk. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Good, try. Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to. The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use personalattack otherwise?
RE: *****SPAM***** [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:07 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: *SPAM* [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Ironically, air pollution is actually keeping a cap on global warming, making it seem less severe than it is. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ and HYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl obal_dimming. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 9:15:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. _Messages in this topic _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/151774;_ylc=X3oDMTM4amw0YXI0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMx NzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQwNTEEdH BjSWQDMTUxNzc0) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYXRkM2ltBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3Jwc 3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BG1zZ0lkAzE1MTgxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExOTI1NDQ wNTE-?act=replymessageNum=151812) | _Start _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN3BuMzBnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5MjAxOTYEZ3 Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDc3MDc2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MjU0NDA1MQ--) Well obviously those *thousands* weren't of much help to Al concerning those nine points. And those weak and debatable nine points certainly did nothing to invalidate the massive body of evidence of global warming. Rather they are apparently handy straws to grasp for desperate wingnut global warming deniers who hate factual reality when it offends their fantasy ideology. -The mistakes identified mainly deal with the predicted impacts of climate change, and include Mr Gore's claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge said: This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. He accepted that melting of the ice would release this amount of water - but only after, and over, millennia. Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange
[FairfieldLife] Brazilian military releases UFO files
Brazil military releases UFO files High-ranking members of the Brazilian Air Force have officially met with a committee of top UFO researchers to discuss sightings in the country, and allowed researchers to examine classified UFO documents in several military facilities. We want to have all information on the subject, which has been withheld by us for some decades, fully released to the public, through the UFO community, said Brigadier Telles Ribeiro, chief of the Brazilian Air Force Communication Center. Brazilian military officials also released important UFO files to researchers, according to A. J. Gevaerd of the Brazilian Committee of UFO Researchers. These files include documents from 1977 that cover dozens of cases of UFOs in the Amazon, with over 100 photos made during Operation Saucer, an official Brazilian military investigation that was carried out between September and December 1977. Other files involved The Official Night of UFOs in Brazil in May 1986, when 21 objects over 100 metres in diameter jammed Brazilian air traffic control systems over Rio de Janeiro, Sao Jose dos Campos and Sao Paulo. Several jets were sent to intercept the unidentified objects, but without success. A Brazilian Air Force commander, Brigadier Atheneu Azambuja, told UFO researchers that the Brazilian military is concerned about the UFO phenomenon, and that the country has systematically detected and documented UFOs in the country since 1954. Brazilian Air Force representatives at these meetings said that further steps will be taken to let researchers examine all military UFO files in a more comprehensive way. A committee of military and civilian UFO researchers was scheduled to start operating soon, co- ordinated by the Brazilian Committee of UFO Researchers. (Source: www.unknowncountry.com) UFO reports declassified The British Ministry of Defence has released thousands of classified documents relating to UFO sightings reported in the 1970s. Now available to the public at the National Archive are documents from the MOD's UFO department, SF4, revealing credible reports of unidentified flying objects from RAF personnel, British Airways pilots and senior police officers. In July 1977 an RAF pilot, Flight Lieutenant A.M. Wood and two colleagues reported bright objects hanging over the sea, the closest being luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter. One was seen to change shape to become body shaped with projections like arms and legs. They observed the objects for an hour and 40 minutes. At the same time the objects were picked up at two British radar stations. A British Airways Tristar pilot returning from Portugal in July 1976 reported four objects, two round brilliant white, two cigar- shaped, 18 miles north of Faro. Alarmed by the sightings, he reported them to air traffic controllers at Lisbon and London, and fighters were immediately scrambled from Lisbon. The documents also contain details of unexplained lights in the sky reported by police officers. These witnesses were taken more seriously than members of the general public, who were dismissed on such grounds as having just emerged from a `pub' or having reported sightings too frequently. (Source: The Independent, UK) Microscopic UFO seen by chemical-imaging camera A chemical-imaging camera that assists scientists in analysing objects and their chemical composition was recently unveiled in one of India's top research and development laboratories. The camera is capable of picking up a microscopic chemical pattern and, within seconds, generating a three-dimensional data cube of spectral, spatial and intensity information. While analysing data from the camera, the scientists came across a set of photographs of a tiny Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), invisible to the naked eye. Because an infrared camera that had also been in use during the same time had not picked up any data, the scientists postulated that the UFO was a remote controlled, non-heat producing craft without any life forms inside it. The scientists also observed that when the chemical-imaging camera captured the details of the UFO, the UFO's manoeuvers suggested that it detected the presence of the chemical-imaging camera in the vicinity. (Source: www.indiadaily.com) (Benjamin Creme's Master confirms that the tiny object was a remote- controlled detector which was there specifically to inspect the chemical-imaging camera. It had been sent out from a Venusian spacecraft, a laboratory ship.) http://www.shareintl.org
[FairfieldLife] Tuesday night gathering in Fairfield/Lou Valentino
HYPERLINK http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/clip_art/objcts/anmls/clips/dove-clip; Hello friends, On Tuesday night there is going to be a gathering of hearts to support the United Nations Millennium Campaign. Eight topics will be prayed for within the group. This is Tuesday evening October 16. 7:30 to 9:00PM. 7:30 to 8:00 there will be refreshments, and social gathering. At 8:00PM everyone will stand up and join hands. The 8 goals will be read. A silent meditation for two minutes will be held in our minds to accomplish the 8 goals. 8:05 to 9:00PM will be uplifting songs as well as bhjans, from various groups throughout the community. It will be the fifth day of 12 of Navaratri. I will perform an original song I wrote a couple of weeks ago called Goddess. It seems fitting since Navaratri is now being celebrated and the 3rd goal is Promote gender equality and empower women. This will take place at 51 N. Court, The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Next to Gupta's. See you soon, Love and Light Lou Valentino HYPERLINK http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/clip_art/gstres/anmls/dolphin-jumping; No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] David Icke - the verdict
This is a much too rational and level headed post for FFL. Have the reptile's gotten to you or something? --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my verdict anyway. There's no denying it's an interesting book Bronte, I would say twenty percent fascinating and eighty percent erm.. we'll get to that. First the interesting parts. He has unearthed some revealing recent history, all the stuff about the UK and US governments is probably all true and shows up some pretty disgraceful behaviour. But not much I didn't already know as I like to keep up on that sort of thing. British agents executing Irish civilians, corruption, cronyism, all of it depressingly true. The parts about Jewish history, Israel and zionism are fascinating but would withstand a bit of checking I should think. I can see why the ADL don't like him but if it's true we should be allowed to discuss it. The subliminal messages in advertising is a bit I enjoyed, I've always avoided ads like the plague, I used to be a media analyst and know just how much of what we read or watch is there simply because someone wants you to see it. The problem I have with this evidence is the conclusions he draws from it. History is just one damn awful thing after another. When I look into the past I see the same things Ickey does, an endless succession of wars, genocide, misery etc. The thing I don't see is that it all has to be part of some huge conspiracy. I think all conspiracy theories start in the same way, some people just can't accept the ugly truth of a situation eg; JFK can't have been shot by a loner with a mail order rifle, Lady Di can't have died in mere car crash, 9/11 can't have been planned by a few guys in desert somewhere. The list is endless, all of them turn out to be wrong, most recently the 9/11 theories have signally failed to stand up to scrutiny. No intercept planes were launched because they didn't know what was going on until it was all over. Bin Ladens family were flown out of the states sure, but they didn't know where Osama was, he had been exiled from Saudi for years. And missiles projecting holographic planes round themselves? Jesus! All human societies past and present reflect human nature. Part amazing and part dreadful. Ickey doesn't seem keen to accept that and has to join everything together into a massive history wide/planet wide plot to control and destroy. The human race doesn't need any help starting wars, it's what we do. But he doesn't stop there of course, it is all controlled by giant shape shifting reptiles. Talk about pushing the blame away. His (I hate to call it evidence) ideas for this are bizarre to say the least. Humans never inter-bred with aliens it simply couldn't happen. We can't inter-breed with chimps our closest relatives let alone crocodiles. Let alone alien crocodiles! It's just so awful to read I feel sorry for him. But then he would say I'm being narrow minded or brainwashed. I wouldn't mind but it makes no sense at all. He selectively picks from prehistoric writing and translates literally when they were all just creation myths. We are so amazing we must be from the gods is a common enough theme that says more about people than it says about reality. Perhaps there is another fear where all his ideas come from, a refusal to accept the boring fact of evolution by natural selection. Finally we get sigh to atlantis. The fact he's included Plato's allegorical island finally destroys what little credibilty he had as a researcher. There is no mention of atlantis anywhere in ancient writing other than in Plato, and the story was set at a time when no advanced civilisation existed, he made it up. To use this and lemuria as the starting point for the reptile invasion of earth says it all, it never happened either. But of course we don't really exist we are part of the matrix, an illusion. I could go on about it but you don't need to think too much about this... LSD only works because we believe it will erm.. so if I was to spike someones drink with acid it would have no effect? Or this, I could turn into a double decker bus if I wanted too? This, Cats jump about seemingly after nothing because they percieve a wider reality? And this, We only put on weight when eating junk food because we believe we will? He also has the usual complete non-understanding of quantum physics that seems to infest the new age. Apart from the aforementioned good bits you could go through every page like this and pick out the howlers. The guy seriously needs an editor, maybe I should volunteer. I often bump into David at waterloo station as he lives just down the coast from me. And that is the main reason I think his ideas to be rubbish. If he was on their case surely the reptiles would have had
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll have to ask him later as I only have one post left for the day. IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context. No Madhusudanas text doesn't, but expicitely refers to PYS 3.1.4 Following is the description of samyama in relation to siddhis. There is also no doubt if you read Vyasas commentary of 3.1.6 where Siddhis are explicitely mentioned in the application of samyama. It is said that the lower stages have to be practiced before the higher. 'Reading of others minds' is mentioned as a lower level in the same commentary (as an example). So, i am simply following the scriptures, and references as they are being made. You are just dodging around interweaved with threats. Your naivete is showing. Dangerously so. What about some yamas first? Eg the abondenment of krodha. Then talk of higher practices
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: Unfortunately cultivation of siddhis, esp, via samyama is the opposite of that, according to the Shankaracharya tradition and numerous others. But not necessarily according to Patanjali. And certainly not according to Madhusudana Saraswati, reformator of Shankaras order in the 16th century. He in his Gita Bashaya describes Samyama as the most effective means. And AFAIK S. is only described in PYS III pertaining to siddhis. So this whole stance against samyama being against the Shankara tradition is only hot air from someone who doesn't know. If that is the case then someone who doesn't know would be Shankaracharya Vidyaranya and the many others he quotes! Once again you are confusing the triad of yogic absorptions with using this triad to cultivate siddhis. There is a huge difference! How do you think samyama is actually used in non-magical traditions? You don't seem to be aware what that method is based on your remarks!!! If thats the case then make us aware rather than being purposefully vague here. In the quotes above Madhusudana is particularely making references to the YS, hradly a magical tradition. AFAIK the word occures only in the context of the 3rd Chapter which is about Siddhis. There has to be a distinction to be made regarding attachment to Siddhis and their practise. You are ignoring this. Otherwise give your sources. You would do better to find an authentic teacher who can explain such things to you as you seem very confused. I cannot initiate you on a message board, what a crazy thing to ask. I certainly didn't ask you for anything. If its all 'secret knowledge' stop discussing! Stop fussing around and being personal. Madhusadana is referring to the triad of absorptions not performing those absorptions on the siddhi formulae (which *are* used in yogic magical traditions). They are not used in the advaita tradition of Shankara. You are just repeating yourself, without giving the required reference, nor do you address the occurence of the reference given i.e PYS III You are just getting personal and threatening. Madhusudanas Bhashya is a commonly available scholastic work, so one should be able to discuss it relatively emotionless on a public forum. If you (or Vaj) don't like this, refrain from discussing here and keep your secrets to yourselves. If this is what your teacher is recommending, I'd be very concerned about that teachers worthiness to teach. See, I am not discussing my teacher, or any teacher, and I wouldn't listen to your judgments, as your tone suggests you are an arrogant 'I know it all and better than everyone' Make clear and rational arguments and we can talk. IIRC the Advaitasiddhi by the same author is also against cultivation of siddhis!!! (I will try to find a quote if I can). Good, try. Your comments do me show the danger of naive people reading texts without guidance, only an agenda. Talking about agendas, what do you think you have? The truth should be your first priority, not your agenda to protect dangerous practices you are attached to. The whole tone of your post is one of superiority, personal attack, and threatening. Your opinion of 'truth' smacks of fundamentalism. Maybe you are just not so sure about everything, why use personalattack otherwise? I'm not attacking you t3inity, it just is rather obvious to me what your quote is referring to: the triad of absorptions (a very valuable practice indeed) but it does not refer to their use for siddhis. If I am missing something or you have a quote from Madhusadana which *does* mention using samyama on the siddhi formulae and practices, then please post it. Your confusing the plain practice of samyama, the triad of the three yogic absorptions, with the practice of samyama ON siddhi formulae (and associated practices). There is a difference, but it's for me to apologize for your ignorance of this fact? No, it's for me to point out this fact, not as any sort of fundamentalist, certainly, but from what my knowledge of what the teachings are. Samyama in the yoga sutra refers to a particular practice: dharana, dhyana and samadhi. That term of and by itself does not specify what object that samyama is being performed on. Since the prohibition on samyama
[FairfieldLife] Disparate Mouse Lives
It strikes me that we are all scurrying in self-made tunnels under a vast plain. Each of us like the other -- out for sex, food and, you know, another breath in the dank runways we've dug. Now and then we poke our heads out, take a look around, and then squeak back down into the tunnel an exclamation about what we see. Then the tunnels do the work of crazifying the echos of our viewpoints. The other mice never quite hear what we saw -- yet each of us feel so sure of what we've spoken, er, squoken? The separateness of each of us is so palpable, poignant and problematic. We all believe that a mouse can roar judging by the way we carry on about our views, and it can hardly be a sin when all of us believe it, but so much gets lost in the transqueaktion. Take Vaj -- he's burrowed upwards and by chance found himself popping out on the top of a termite mound with quite a view that simply cannot be squeaked about adequately -- he has to get other mice to his mound's vista point or be doomed to using dry words to convey so much to so few for so little effect. From his height, Buddha is seen. And Vaj is merely one expert here with a high vantage. Many squeak from heights here. And, yet each low point view, too, is, something to squeak about cuz Buddha is everywhere donchaknow. I see so many of you across the expanse -- tiny dots mound-dancing soundlessly in exultation on a horizon. A mostly uninterpretable semaphore, yet I KNOW each of you see something I wish I could see also. The tunnels go to everywhere and every squeak promises a grand vista. Gotta love that -- makes every mouse a master with an inspiration to tout. But, how much I long for those rare moments when whiskers are touched in the dark below. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
Michael (t3rinity), this is part of a really excellent group of discussion threads that you are participating in with Turq, Mainstream, Curtis, etc.; thanks bunches for it. The points you articulate resonate with my experience, feelings, and (I guess) beliefs. Hope to drop in later with something more valuable than just appreciation, but don't stop now. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ 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!! Yes. Why do you believe that humans do not have free will ? The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illussiory character of our selves. I put the decision making into 'Gods' hand as this is a convenient term most people can relate to. I don't mean to prove the existence of a God by denying free-will. Rather I point out that an atheist has unproven belief systems, he is hardly aware of: His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio. 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 ? Its Christianity. Doesn't fit for me. Why do you decide the way you decide? Why do you think the way you think, and why do others think differently than you? Then if you decide the wrong way, you have to go to eternal hell, that's the conclusion of religious free will. According to Christianities free will Curtis is doomed because he is an atheist. According to my theory
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disparate Mouse Lives
Edg, this (below) is one of the very best (IMO). Thanks for the whisker tug. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It strikes me that we are all scurrying in self-made tunnels under a vast plain. Each of us like the other -- out for sex, food and, you know, another breath in the dank runways we've dug. Now and then we poke our heads out, take a look around, and then squeak back down into the tunnel an exclamation about what we see. Then the tunnels do the work of crazifying the echos of our viewpoints. The other mice never quite hear what we saw -- yet each of us feel so sure of what we've spoken, er, squoken? The separateness of each of us is so palpable, poignant and problematic. We all believe that a mouse can roar judging by the way we carry on about our views, and it can hardly be a sin when all of us believe it, but so much gets lost in the transqueaktion. Take Vaj -- he's burrowed upwards and by chance found himself popping out on the top of a termite mound with quite a view that simply cannot be squeaked about adequately -- he has to get other mice to his mound's vista point or be doomed to using dry words to convey so much to so few for so little effect. From his height, Buddha is seen. And Vaj is merely one expert here with a high vantage. Many squeak from heights here. And, yet each low point view, too, is, something to squeak about cuz Buddha is everywhere donchaknow. I see so many of you across the expanse -- tiny dots mound-dancing soundlessly in exultation on a horizon. A mostly uninterpretable semaphore, yet I KNOW each of you see something I wish I could see also. The tunnels go to everywhere and every squeak promises a grand vista. Gotta love that -- makes every mouse a master with an inspiration to tout. But, how much I long for those rare moments when whiskers are touched in the dark below. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
In a message dated 10/16/07 10:07:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Hey, I'm all for cleaning up any toxic waste. I breath the same air, drink the same water and eat the same foods you do. But let me ask you, have you ever traveled outside the United States or Western Europe? If you have ever been to countries like India, Mexico, or China, you would think of down town L.A. as being virtually *smog free* . I only mention these three countries because I've been to India and Mexico and have friends who have been to China and our experience is that our pollution problems are miniscule compared to those in those countries, yet our industries and use of fossil fuels is far greater. I guess what really annoys me is that the very same people that complain the loudest seem to be the same ones that stand in the way of ideas and solutions that could help remedy the problems. Example, nuclear power plants to generate electricity are fought tooth and nail as are wind turbines off Nantucket. The people willing to invest in these things eventually give up because the legal battles involved in getting it done, add too much to the initial cost of start up. Meanwhile, we keep burning coal to get what could have been generated very cleanly and cheaply. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
Mdix, I've been to 14 countries, and each had its abandoned yards with piled up 55 gallon drums of yuck. In Majorca, on my teacher training course, I snuck off to the local village about ten miles away, and I could hardly breath just because so many wood fires were burning in individual homes. This was 1971 modern Spain, but the air was actually foggy with smoke. Reminded me of Saturday mornings when everyone in the burb gets out their lawn mower and beclouds the neighborhood with a Briggs and Stratton pollution machine. But, a natural smoke of a wood stove is noxious enough, but the puking of industry today just cannot be considered quite so quaint. America's pollution is not just a lot of campfires. The sheer number of different chemicals that nature never made that are poured into our biosphere where they interact in unknown, unstudied ways is a far more egregious effluence. So, yes, I think third-world use of wood and high sulfur coal/oil is horrid, and 25% of L.A. smog is Chinese soot, but our 30,000 (some say 300,000) officially designated toxic dump sites, exude a brew of terrifyingly virility, and the grandfathering of so many industrial processes that are not subject to pollution laws leads me to believe that America's pollution is a deeper shade of vile. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 10:07:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Hey, I'm all for cleaning up any toxic waste. I breath the same air, drink the same water and eat the same foods you do. But let me ask you, have you ever traveled outside the United States or Western Europe? If you have ever been to countries like India, Mexico, or China, you would think of down town L.A. as being virtually *smog free* . I only mention these three countries because I've been to India and Mexico and have friends who have been to China and our experience is that our pollution problems are miniscule compared to those in those countries, yet our industries and use of fossil fuels is far greater. I guess what really annoys me is that the very same people that complain the loudest seem to be the same ones that stand in the way of ideas and solutions that could help remedy the problems. Example, nuclear power plants to generate electricity are fought tooth and nail as are wind turbines off Nantucket. The people willing to invest in these things eventually give up because the legal battles involved in getting it done, add too much to the initial cost of start up. Meanwhile, we keep burning coal to get what could have been generated very cleanly and cheaply. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Samyama in the yoga sutra refers to a particular practice: dharana, dhyana and samadhi. That term of and by itself does not specify what object that samyama is being performed on. Well, here's Vyaasa's comment on III 1 naabhi-cakre hRdaya-puNDariike muurdhni jyotiSi naasikaagre jihvaagra ityevamaadiSu desheSu baahye vaa viSaye cittasya vRtti-maatrena bandha iti dhaaraNaa Sat sapienti? :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting translation of III 38
Vaj writes snipped; Actually the way it's taught by lineal Patanjali masters is that siddhis are not to be cultivated via samyama but instead are spontaneous side-effects of samadhi. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati emphasized this as well. TomT: As I have stated previously The sutras are not a prescription for awakening, but a description of an awakened life. Tom
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors In a message dated 10/16/07 10:07:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Hey, I'm all for cleaning up any toxic waste. I breath the same air, drink the same water and eat the same foods you do. But let me ask you, have you ever traveled outside the United States or Western Europe? If you have ever been to countries like India, Mexico, or China, you would think of down town L.A. as being virtually *smog free* . I only mention these three countries because I've been to India and Mexico and have friends who have been to China and our experience is that our pollution problems are miniscule compared to those in those countries, yet our industries and use of fossil fuels is far greater. It’s Spaceship Earth, dude. Ultimately, we all breathe the same air. I guess what really annoys me is that the very same people that complain the loudest seem to be the same ones that stand in the way of ideas and solutions that could help remedy the problems. Example, nuclear power plants to generate electricity are fought tooth and nail They should be because there’s no way of disposing of the waste. And even if we built enough large reactors (10,000) to replace oil, we’d run out of uranium in 10 years, and have huge amounts of waste on hand with a half-life of 10’s of thousands of years. as are wind turbines off Nantucket. They shouldn’t be (IMO). Ted Kennedy and others are hypocrites for opposing them. The people willing to invest in these things eventually give up because the legal battles involved in getting it done, add too much to the initial cost of start up. Meanwhile, we keep burning coal to get what could have been generated very cleanly and cheaply. From my novice perspective, it seems like solar is the way to go. Cover an area half the size of California (i.e., all the rooftops in America) with solar panels and you supply all the nation’s energy needs. If this were to be undertaken, the ramped up research and economies of scale would make it a lot cheaper than it first appears. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
I agree with Marek that this discussion has brought up some cool insights. Thanks to Mr. T for going so deeply into his own perspective. I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. T I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different character than my own insights. Here T sums up what he sees as my perspective: TCurtis 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[nality] highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my insights are gained in this way: T: he tries to understand them rationallyonly, This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of becoming awakened. The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. I don't believe that people who view life from a theological perspective will evolve into atheism. I think some believers in God think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or another life) again. Given enough evidence I surely could believe again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have discovered along the way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya, Illusion. Some people would call Shankaras Advaita a concealed atheism, but its very much my position. Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no need to postulate a Creator or another entity that is in control of their lives. They see life as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma and free will. Those two forces account for every phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, without the need for a God or another entity to be responsible for it. May I note that ist interesting you call 'free will' a force. And I don't think its just a semantic mistake: Thats what Buddhism says, everything is just the interplay of forces. And mind you they say the same thing about the individual ego, its just a composite, nothing of an entity in itself. A composite of different elements
[FairfieldLife] New Al Gore videos
From a friend: Al Gore has a video space on the internet. Just after he received the peace prize, he made these videos, and they aren't about global warming. They're about current issues. HYPERLINK http://www.current.com/topics/32966219_al_gorehttp://www.current.com/topic s/32966219_al_gore I heard this on the Thom Hartmann show. He brought it up in the context that in the Ukraine there were several elections where the power brokers also controlled the media so it wasn't really possible to run against them and they ran campaigns using alternative media, most of which was the internet. But several of them won without using the main stream, biased media. Sound familiar? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM plainbrn.gif
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
In a message dated 10/16/07 12:06:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From my novice perspective, it seems like solar is the way to go. Cover an area half the size of California (i.e., all the rooftops in America) with solar panels and you supply all the nation’s energy needs. If this were to be undertaken, the ramped up research and economies of scale would make it a lot cheaper than it first appears. Rick, from what I know about photovoltaic electricity, we aren't quite there with the technology. I know a person that sells solar panels and he outfitted his house with them and he told me he can run some lights and small appliances on them but something major like an air conditioning system is out of the question. As the British Petroleum commercials say *there won't be one solution, but many*. While one solution may not be the answer to all the problems, it may have it's niche in the big picture, even if only for a relatively short period of time while technology advances. Who knows where technology will be twenty or fifty years from now. Necassity is the mother of invention. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Disparate Mouse Lives
We like to think that we're above the status of mice. Anything less than human is a karmic regression. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It strikes me that we are all scurrying in self-made tunnels under a vast plain. Each of us like the other -- out for sex, food and, you know, another breath in the dank runways we've dug. Now and then we poke our heads out, take a look around, and then squeak back down into the tunnel an exclamation about what we see. Then the tunnels do the work of crazifying the echos of our viewpoints. The other mice never quite hear what we saw -- yet each of us feel so sure of what we've spoken, er, squoken? The separateness of each of us is so palpable, poignant and problematic. We all believe that a mouse can roar judging by the way we carry on about our views, and it can hardly be a sin when all of us believe it, but so much gets lost in the transqueaktion. Take Vaj -- he's burrowed upwards and by chance found himself popping out on the top of a termite mound with quite a view that simply cannot be squeaked about adequately -- he has to get other mice to his mound's vista point or be doomed to using dry words to convey so much to so few for so little effect. From his height, Buddha is seen. And Vaj is merely one expert here with a high vantage. Many squeak from heights here. And, yet each low point view, too, is, something to squeak about cuz Buddha is everywhere donchaknow. I see so many of you across the expanse -- tiny dots mound-dancing soundlessly in exultation on a horizon. A mostly uninterpretable semaphore, yet I KNOW each of you see something I wish I could see also. The tunnels go to everywhere and every squeak promises a grand vista. Gotta love that -- makes every mouse a master with an inspiration to tout. But, how much I long for those rare moments when whiskers are touched in the dark below. Edg
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors In a message dated 10/16/07 12:06:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From my novice perspective, it seems like solar is the way to go. Cover an area half the size of California (i.e., all the rooftops in America) with solar panels and you supply all the nation’s energy needs. If this were to be undertaken, the ramped up research and economies of scale would make it a lot cheaper than it first appears. Rick, from what I know about photovoltaic electricity, we aren't quite there with the technology. I know a person that sells solar panels and he outfitted his house with them and he told me he can run some lights and small appliances on them but something major like an air conditioning system is out of the question. As the British Petroleum commercials say *there won't be one solution, but many*. While one solution may not be the answer to all the problems, it may have it's niche in the big picture, even if only for a relatively short period of time while technology advances. Who knows where technology will be twenty or fifty years from now. Necassity is the mother of invention. I agree, and would like to add that it’s a shame we’re spending billions on a war in a dubious attempt to safeguard our supply of oil when that same money, if put into alternative energy RD, could free us from the temptation of such wars and our reliance on environmentally destructive energy sources. We need a Kennedy-style alternative energy moon race. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
Curtis, thank you, brother, for this (below). What you wrote reminded me of my dearest friend, the artist Toc Fetch* (whose brushes I'm not worthy to wash), who is also what I'd characterize as an exalted atheist. I would never expect him to evolve into anything higher because, like you, his atheism is so wonderful (and exactly what I'd aspire to for myself). My own theism is like Michael's (t3rinity's) inasmuch as I'm just naturally drawn to it; it fits me like my clothes, but it doesn't conflict with what you've described as your own point of view; at least it doesn't create any waves of conflict in me. Marek (*tocfetch.com) ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Marek that this discussion has brought up some cool insights. Thanks to Mr. T for going so deeply into his own perspective. I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. T I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different character than my own insights. Here T sums up what he sees as my perspective: TCurtis 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[nality] highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my insights are gained in this way: T: he tries to understand them rationallyonly, This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of becoming awakened. The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. I don't believe that people who view life from a theological perspective will evolve into atheism. I think some believers in God think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or another life) again. Given enough evidence I surely could believe again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have discovered along the way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
I know several folks/families who live off the grid and use solar. Once I house sat for a couple in their 2500 square foot log home and they had a huge capacity washer/dryer, ac, appliances, lights, garage door opener, etc. -- the whole works -- and although they had a back- up gas generator, they said they could go for 9 days with no sun at all, using all their appliances as per usual, before they'd have to turn the generator on. My former spouse installed solar panels on her home in Davis last year and I don't believe she's had to pay anything to PGE yet, but has received payments from them every month for the excess electricity she sells back to the grid. From anecdotal reports it seems that we do have the technology now, but costs are a crucial factor in the initial switch to solar. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 12:06:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From my novice perspective, it seems like solar is the way to go. Cover an area half the size of California (i.e., all the rooftops in America) with solar panels and you supply all the nationâs energy needs. If this were to be undertaken, the ramped up research and economies of scale would make it a lot cheaper than it first appears. Rick, from what I know about photovoltaic electricity, we aren't quite there with the technology. I know a person that sells solar panels and he outfitted his house with them and he told me he can run some lights and small appliances on them but something major like an air conditioning system is out of the question. As the British Petroleum commercials say *there won't be one solution, but many*. While one solution may not be the answer to all the problems, it may have it's niche in the big picture, even if only for a relatively short period of time while technology advances. Who knows where technology will be twenty or fifty years from now. Necassity is the mother of invention. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
For the cost of the Iraq war, America with its 10,000 small towns, could have spent $50,000,000 in each one to set up solar, hydrogen, biofuel stations or windfarms. 50 million bucks for Fairfield alone. Get it? Does anyone doubt that half a trillion dollars spent on anything would getter done? Cancer cure anyone? I heard that the ENTIRE WORLD COULD BE GIVEN CLEAN DRINKING WATER, ELECTRIFICATION for a mere $75,000,000,000. This is the true evil of Bushco. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know several folks/families who live off the grid and use solar. Once I house sat for a couple in their 2500 square foot log home and they had a huge capacity washer/dryer, ac, appliances, lights, garage door opener, etc. -- the whole works -- and although they had a back- up gas generator, they said they could go for 9 days with no sun at all, using all their appliances as per usual, before they'd have to turn the generator on. My former spouse installed solar panels on her home in Davis last year and I don't believe she's had to pay anything to PGE yet, but has received payments from them every month for the excess electricity she sells back to the grid. From anecdotal reports it seems that we do have the technology now, but costs are a crucial factor in the initial switch to solar. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 12:06:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rick@ writes: From my novice perspective, it seems like solar is the way to go. Cover an area half the size of California (i.e., all the rooftops in America) with solar panels and you supply all the nationâs energy needs. If this were to be undertaken, the ramped up research and economies of scale would make it a lot cheaper than it first appears. Rick, from what I know about photovoltaic electricity, we aren't quite there with the technology. I know a person that sells solar panels and he outfitted his house with them and he told me he can run some lights and small appliances on them but something major like an air conditioning system is out of the question. As the British Petroleum commercials say *there won't be one solution, but many*. While one solution may not be the answer to all the problems, it may have it's niche in the big picture, even if only for a relatively short period of time while technology advances. Who knows where technology will be twenty or fifty years from now. Necassity is the mother of invention. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
do.rflex wrote: Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize ridiculous and the product of people who don't understand how the atmosphere works. Full story: 'Gore gets a cold shoulder' By Steve Lytte Sydney Morning Herald, October 14, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/354c4l
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do.rflex wrote: Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize ridiculous and the product of people who don't understand how the atmosphere works. Full story: 'Gore gets a cold shoulder' By Steve Lytte Sydney Morning Herald, October 14, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/354c4l Nice try Willtex, but they wanna believe what they wanna believe! Hey...the argument is over! Nyuk, nyuk!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Judo Theory of Social Change
So, you think it's wrong for politicians to talk about what they think is wrong, and that's what you are against. TurquoiseB wrote: I've done this rap before, and people were bored by it then, too. :-) But since, given Jung's proj- ection theory, the person I'm preaching to is probably myself, I'm going to give myself a good talking to anyway. Lord knows I need it. :-) It's about this notion that there are things *wrong* with the world, and that many of them need to be changed. Absolutely *nothing* wrong with this; I tend to resonate with and identify with folks like Gandhi who devoted their lives *to* correcting a few of the things about the world that they thought were wrong. But I tend to identify with the guys *like* Gandhi, who presented new ideas of what is *right*, and didn't spend all their time (and waste all their energy) focusing on the things that are wrong. And it's all about Judo. I studied it for a time when I was young, and even got fairly good at it. And one of the things you learn from Judo is that when you're in a match with someone, what you *long* for is an opponent who spends all of his time and his energy focused on being *against* you. They're the easiest to beat. Why? Because they're off balance. All of their attention is focused on aggressive moves, moves *against* the opponent. And that, almost by defi- nition, throws them off balance. They shove at you, trying to throw you to the mat, and all you have to do is step out of the way and stick your foot out and *they* are the ones on the mat. That's how I view politics and the world of social change. A lot of politicians (and armchair politic- ians) spend most, if not all, of their time talking about what's *wrong* with the world, or with the current system, or with the people who are running it. Whenever I meet one of these people, I tend to say to them, Yeah, I get that. You're against this and this and this and that. Good on you. Now, what are you *for*? The answer is usually stony silence. They've never even thought about it. And that's why so many revolutions and movements for social change fail. They're only *against*. They don't know what they're *for*. And so they are in exactly the same position, IMO, as the Judoka who is constantly pushing against the opponent trying to throw him, and in reality is throwing himself off balance and putting himself in a weak position. What happens with revolutions? Historically, the worst thing that could ever happen to them is that they succeed. Almost every one that *has* succeeded has then imploded on itself. The fiery, passionate rebels focus for years on getting rid of the Bad Guys in power, and finally succeed. After a few purges, they get rid of every one of them. And then they look around and think, What next? And, because they've never given any *thought* to what comes next, they start looking around for a new enemy, someone else to be *against*. Most often, historically, that is members of their own revolution, who suddenly become the new enemy, and have to be purged. That's why I write off any politician who is only *against* things, and can never bring himself to talk about any of the things he's *for*. He's weak, and off balance, and very possibly doesn't even *know* what he's for. He's never had to. The voting public are such suckers for righteous anger and blame that they'll vote him into office just on the basis of what he's *against*. But not me. I'm waiting for a politician who is willing to take a stand and tell us what he's *for*. Because if he wins, he might just have some notion of what to do once he's in office. The politicians who are only *against* won't have a clue. That's why things never change. The newly- elected anti politicians just become the next generation of Bad Guys. I sorta feel the same way about criticisms of spirit- ual practice and religion. These things are easy targets; much of the world's misery has been caused by them, and much of it still is. But as noble as it is on one level to be *against* some of the lesser practices and beliefs one sees in religions and spiritual traditions -- and as EASY as it is to take that approach and fall into the rut of Flaccid Mind Syndrome and rail against them -- I'm lookin' for the individuals who can suggest a different approach, one that might work better. Those guys and gals might just have a clue, because they've put some thought into what they're *for*. The ones who are only *against* -- give me a break. Flaccid minds the lot of them. So, with the political season upon us in America and everyone and their dog talking about what's wrong with the world, I'm waiting for someone who is some- what more balanced and is willing to tell us what they think might be more right. And in the realm of criticizing religion, I'm equally unimpressed with the Professional Atheists who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
BillyG wrote: Nyuk, nyuk! Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. - Bertrand Russell Gore is an embarrassment to the nation and should be recognized for being a despotic fool not someone who promoted the cause of peace. One can never base recognition for achievement on self serving lies and misstatements. Read more: Al Gore's Global Warming Lies: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28629.html ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize ridiculous and the product of people who don't understand how the atmosphere works. Full story: 'Gore gets a cold shoulder' By Steve Lytte Sydney Morning Herald, October 14, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/354c4l
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: do.rflex wrote: Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize ridiculous and the product of people who don't understand how the atmosphere works. Full story: 'Gore gets a cold shoulder' By Steve Lytte Sydney Morning Herald, October 14, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/354c4l Nice try Willtex, but they wanna believe what they wanna believe! Hey...the argument is over! Nyuk, nyuk! Bill Gray is [often] excoriated in public, rightfully in my opinion, because he's essentially accused the entire scientific community of fraud ... and for no other reason that I can figure out other than he didn't get the funding he feels he deserves. As a scientist, he knows that the type of conspiracy theories he's suggesting simply cannot actually occur. This has led to a real loss of respect within the community for him. ~~ Andrew Dessler PhD, Associate Professor at Texas AM University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. His research areas are climate systems research and climate change policy. He has a BA from Rice University and a PhD from Harvard University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marek Reavis Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors From anecdotal reports it seems that we do have the technology now, but costs are a crucial factor in the initial switch to solar. I heard a story on the radio that said that although the technology is evolving, it is doing so incrementally, not dramatically, while the cost of electricity is increasing faster than the efficiency of solar. So it’s worth buying into now, especially if it’s subsidized or you get tax credits, as I understand is the case in California. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1072 - Release Date: 10/15/2007 5:55 PM
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
nablusoss1008 wrote: --- 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. No I didn't conveniently skip that because I'm discussing the mantras and not their method of transmission. That's another subject which I have also written about in the last few days. Do you understand why I used planetary mantras? I would say you don't know many or maybe any Indian billionaires then. My guru has a client who is an Indian billionaire. Most wealthy Hindus who do sadhana don't do TM but practice things they learned from childhood which are very traditional. Maybe you should ask your neighborhood convenience store owner, if they're Indian, about mantras without Om and see what answer you get. And I was not speaking about just meditating on Om alone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
Hi Curtis, This was quite beautiful. Thank you. If you feel comfortable, I would love to hear more about how you came to embrace atheism. I feel an internal struggle between the idea of a personal God and that I am creating this God for comfort, out of fear, out of lonliness, specialness, etc. I love that you pointed out that this was not an intelectual journey for you. Rather this encompassed your heart and spirit as well. You have given me a lot to ponder. I have felt spiritual without the need for a God. I still feel very connected to other people, animals, nature. I always experience this with confusion. How can I feel this connection yet not believe in God? Don't I need a God to feel connected? I had a conversation a few months back with a good friend and my wife. The friend and I were sharing our feelings/thoughts on God, on having a purpose, etc. My lovely wife chimed in and said all of these self doubts are a result of our belief in a God. A God that has a plan for us (which we never seem to find), a God that has expectations of us (which we can never meet). She said her peace comes from not needing a God. Just being comfortable with herself. Period. Anyway, thanks for sparking my mind. Best, Gary --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Marek that this discussion has brought up some cool insights. Thanks to Mr. T for going so deeply into his own perspective. I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. T I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different character than my own insights. Here T sums up what he sees as my perspective: TCurtis 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[nality] highest, and I always understood this to mean a place where intellect is 'in control' I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my insights are gained in this way: T: he tries to understand them rationallyonly, This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of becoming awakened. The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. I don't believe that people who view life from a theological perspective will evolve into atheism. I think some believers in God think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or another life) again. Given enough evidence I surely could believe again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have discovered along the way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Michael, I have to say that I think the problem is, as you state, in your understanding
Re: [FairfieldLife] Teach Your Friends to Meditate
biosoundbill wrote: After 30 years I still think that TM is a brilliant Technique. I leave the rest – MMY, TMO, etc. All bija mantras are Tantric,and they all have variations depending on which part of India the teacher comes from- Lakshmi Bija is pronounced Shring,Shreeng, and sometimes Shrim in the North, whereas it is pronounced Shreem in the South. Saraswati bija is Aing (i-ing) in the North and Aim (I'M or I-eem), Kali bija is Kring or Kreeng in the North, and Krim (Kreem) in the South. Recently I did a TM Puja for a friend of mine who had been meditating effortlessly for 2 years with Southern version of Lakshmi Bija `Shreem,' ever since her meditations have been much deeper, and she has experienced transcending for the first time. If you would like to give a friend the benefits of meditation, the best thing you could do is to teach them to meditate by giving them your own TM mantra, and teaching them how to meditate effortlessly with it. By doing this no puja is required as they are getting the mantra with Shakti from you. For any other mantra a puja is required. The other thing I wish to say is that once a person has a mantra; it should never be changed for the rest of their life! Jai Guru Dev, Billy You should go study with a tantric adept rather that just make things up. Learn the real thing since you seem to have a sincere interest in mantra shastra. I've seen long debates over the 'ng' and 'm' endings on Indian tantric discussion forums. Suffice to say the jury is out on that one. My tradition uses 'ng' endings and I stick to that. I also disagree on changing mantras because people do change traditions. 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 * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Spirituality In Action
TurquoiseB wrote: I heard an interesting story about local events recently that kinda inspired me. Upon moving here and getting to know Spain a little better, I was surprised to find that there are strong enclaves of Seventh-Day Adventists here. Whole *towns* are composed mainly of Seventh-Day Adventists, who are viewed by many of their neighbors as a little restrictive in their religious beliefs and in their lifestyles, even a bit Puritanical and cultish. In one of these towns with large numbers of Seventh- Day Adventists, a yoga studio opened and began teaching meditation and yoga and other such things. The Seventh-Day Adventists didn't exactly approve, and occasionally were pretty vocal about expressing their disapproval. But then one night the yoga studio burned down. It wasn't arson or anything like that, just an elec- trical short that started a fire. And so what did the local Seventh-Day Adventist group do about this? They volunteered to help the yoga teachers rebuild. Dozens of Seventh-Day Adventists came out and worked side by side with the yoga students to rip out the charred wood and replace it with new wood and get the studio up and running again. WHY did they do this? Because these folks were their neighbors, they said, and this is just what you *do* for neighbors, whether you approve of their lifestyle and beliefs or not. A lesson to be learned here, I suspect... I grew up near a community of Seventh Day Adventists. The were sort of like the roos of the area and locals called them peanut eaters. I knew quite a few and when I living back in my hometown during the 80's I had business dealings with some. Like the Mormons they have to seek out converts because the children rebel against the rules of the church and leave it. Like the Mormons they can be very open minded about other's beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ 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. No I didn't conveniently skip that because I'm discussing the mantras and not their method of transmission. That's another subject which I have also written about in the last few days. Do you understand why I used planetary mantras? I would say you don't know many or maybe any Indian billionaires then. My guru has a client who is an Indian billionaire. Most wealthy Hindus who do sadhana don't do TM but practice things they learned from childhood which are very traditional. Maybe you should ask your neighborhood convenience store owner, if they're Indian, about mantras without Om and see what answer you get. And I was not speaking about just meditating on Om alone. I used to know several indian billioaires in rupees (:-) and two in $. And you are right, they practise what they have learnt from the family, but never sitting down with closed eyes, mainly chanting. Therefore it does not fall into the category of meditation, IMO, but rather devotional practise with less pronounced effects. For them using Om has little or no effect, it's just part of the religion. The inheritants are probably happily unaware of the possible danger...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Teach Your Friends to Meditate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: adept rather that just make things up. Learn the real thing since you seem to have a sincere interest in mantra shastra. I've seen long debates over the 'ng' and 'm' endings on Indian tantric discussion forums. Suffice to say the jury is out on that one. My tradition uses 'ng' endings and I stick to that. I also disagree on changing mantras because people do change traditions. FWIW: I think I recently heard on Youtube Macca pronounce a word like thing almost like think (perhaps thingh would come quite close...) I'm afraid that might be quite a common British (Liverpudlian?) pronunciation of words ending with 'ng'.
[FairfieldLife] Madhusudana S. on Samyama (Re: Interesting translation of III 38)
Hi Trinity, Welcome back to krodha-dama. We get to hear claims here from time to time about lineages - along with various references to yogic insider knowledge. Most of it is nothing but mere claims, usually based upon a favored explanation given by some teacher who is rooted in a particular interpretation or philosophic view about yoga. Here, in this context, it appears quite funny - so we should all have a good laugh, pass the bottle of bourbon and salute our foolish imaginations. The PatanjalaYogaSutra is clocked around 150-200 CE. Both the Samkhya and Yoga darshanas were dealt with by Buddhist scholars, even as late as Paramatha in China (6th Cent. CE). That is pretty much it because neither of these darshanas survived the intervening centuries down to our era of time. Did not survive means no param-para, no sampradaya, no lineage, no diksha, no transmission of secret techniques, no transmission of hidden knowledge, and more importantly no person remaining to retain any kind of lengthy or abridged explanations. Swami Hariharananda Aranya tried to revive this extinct lineage in the 19th Century, CE by creating a SankhyaYoga Matha but it did not survive either. Vedanta survived - in various forms and sampradayas. Vedantic teachers read Patanjali and created their own interpretations of his intended meaning, although almost always defering to and starting from Vyasa's commentary. And Trinity you are quite correct. I posted Shankara's short vivarana about siddhis in Card's thread about YS. III.37(38). He sees siddhis as distractions but only for a yogin who wants to remain absorbed in the vision of purusha. Even then there is no problem for one detached in proper vairagya. empty --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kaladevi93 no_reply@ wrote: IIRC the initiated interpretation is in the order the text is meant to be read. In that order samyama is described and ALL THE MAGICAL FORMULA ARE TO BE SKIPPED. The text picks up where they end with the description of mastering yogic discrimination. People who just read the text as if it were to be read in a sequence will miss this. So it seems to me you don't understand they way it is read for the initiated. Your quote refers to a verse and there is no mention of the siddhis (unless you forgot to post that?). It does not refer to samyama on the siddhis at all. This is why you have missed the context.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Yeah, unlike that noted scientist of letters, Al Gore.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 10/16/07 7:07:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time, do.rflex@ writes: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Neither does Al Gore. Ah, but the many thousands of scientists world-wide who are the source of his information, do. ...and where, pray tell, is that list of thousands? And don't tell me the IPCC because they aren't all scientists (unlike the Oregon Petition in which they WERE all scientists).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Who is in control of our lives?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that post Gary. So often Atheism is presented arrogantly as the only rational POV, but people drop out of believing in God for as many reasons as people change their religions. It is a decision of heart and mind and can embrace a total person's capacities Falling into atheism is not like adapting a belief, it is what is left when your beliefs fall off. The term is really poor because it sums up my experience as if my life is a negative denial of something rather than a positive affirmation of my life and my place in the world. I associate this POV with freedom and the solidity that comes from not assuming I KNOW things that I don't. It embraces my life as very mortal human sharing the planet with other vulnerable creatures. It is humbling to accept that I don't know our place in the universe and that the meaning of my life is something I have to choose for myself. Good post Curtis. Actually great. I appreciate your POV. Several questions: Why atheism and not agnosticism? I don't know seems more compatible with the latter. In your POV: 1) Where does karma stand? 2) Can scriptures have a value in ethics, a la, the Jefferson Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, the predecessor to Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813: In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines. [3] Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version, however. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition. 3) How do you feel about chicks who scream Oh God! OH GOD!! at the height of passion?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
Of course I hate pollution, Edg. I hike at least once a week and hate seeing that haze of grey over the city. But global warming is what is under discussion here. Our mutual disgust of our living environment and the destruction of the planet because of greenhouse gasses are two different things. And speaking of global warming, remember that the IPCC said that the #1 cause of global warming was not tailpipes (your term from below) but cowpipes: farting and belching from livestock. If people stopped eating meat tomorrow, we could,literally, eliminate 99% of the #1 cause of global warming overnight. All cattle slaughtered. All chickens, lambs, etc. No more farting, no more belching. But I suggest it would be VERY hard to give up our cars and, to do so, would devastate the world economy, something that would NOT happen if the livestock industry came apart. So I'll jump on the global warming bandwagon just to see the world become vegetarian. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mdix, To hell with global warming theory -- what about pollution? Gore's encapsulation is merely a POV which can be sniped at, but everyone on the planet knows about pollution, cuz it's right there in their faces -- thousands and thousands of chemical-disaster-zones leeching poisons into aquifers for example -- only one of literally millions of kinds of polution. Completely undeniable -- I can take any global warming naysayer to a industrial-graveyard and point to it, and that naysayer will say, Yuck. Clean this danger up! If Gore is to be successful, all the pollution will have to be cleaned up -- not just the carbon of smoke stacks and tailpipes. I once was driving in the desert. Miles of straight, flat highway and not a car in sight. But I smelled diesel fumes. Finally after about 20 minutes, I saw way way ahead of me a semi belching smoke. I was astounded that my nose had seen farther than my eyes. Now, what DON'T I SMELL? Answer: everything. In the desert, one smell was easily sensed, but in every city in the world, factories are pouring out the crud and our noses are overwhelmed into a false non-smelling-ness. This is a huge problem. Has been since the start of the industrial revolution. Only Gore has found a popular theme that has grabbed the minds of the masses. So, I'm all for Gore even if sometimes he can be proven by you to be an inconvenience. Below's an earlier post I wrote to Shemp. I talk about another car ride therein. You should read it too. Edg Shemp, Shemp, Shemp, You continue to write as if the corporate world is not dumping toxins anywhere they damned well please. Could you just do me a favor and google pollution and see if you can read even five minutes before you puke. You seem -- SEEM -- to believe that the industrial revolution's pollution has been insignificant -- socially, environmentally, financially, psychologically, and spiritually. Am I right about that or am I getting a completely wrong take on you? Shemp, listen to me. Once, I drove in a car for over an hour in Indonesia along a canal. Next to that canal, for an hour's drive remember, was every manner of cardboard-shack housing imaginable, and that canal was where they got their water, washed and dumped their filth. Toddlers playing in muck, old women over tiny fires with rusted pots, and blight in all directions. The smell alone would knock you to your knees, Shemp. I don't know how many people I passed that hour, but it was in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. All living in squalor of such hideousness that the entire Indonesian government should be hung for crimes against humanity. Hung without due process, without a trial -- this village of the damned was prima facie evidence that would have any jury making up their minds and voting for the death penalty while walking to the juryroom. That, Shemp, is the true face of the industrial revolution, and it's been going on without end since it started. It's not just about airborne soot from China, it's about the human misery we're all turning a blind eye towards. Shemp, Shemp, Shemp, what don't you understand about black lung disease, sweat shops, migrant labor, apartheid, Darfur cleansings, World War II Japanese internment camps in California, fixed elections, gerrymandering, elitism, fascism, Big Brother, and the Dresden Firebombing? The fact that global warming may or may not be connected to this pollution is not the issue -- it is merely a cause célèbre, a calling to arms, a rallying flag for the Greens who see pollution and globalism and human rights as the core issues -- not saving water front properties in Florida from the ocean rising 20 feet due to, you know, all of Antarctica melting. Shemp, you seem to be on the side of the bad guys. Say it ain't so. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
shempmcgurk wrote: Of course I hate pollution, Edg. I hike at least once a week and hate seeing that haze of grey over the city. But global warming is what is under discussion here. Our mutual disgust of our living environment and the destruction of the planet because of greenhouse gasses are two different things. And speaking of global warming, remember that the IPCC said that the #1 cause of global warming was not tailpipes (your term from below) but cowpipes: farting and belching from livestock. If people stopped eating meat tomorrow, we could,literally, eliminate 99% of the #1 cause of global warming overnight. And they would be too anemic to do anything else other than sit on the couch which they do enough of already. Of course they would also get severely ill because most people can't become vegetarians overnight but that'll help solve the problem. Reduce the population and you reduce pollution. All cattle slaughtered. All chickens, lambs, etc. No more farting, no more belching. No more energy or strength for humans. Blame your ancestors. But I suggest it would be VERY hard to give up our cars and, to do so, would devastate the world economy, something that would NOT happen if the livestock industry came apart. You could wear a cherry bowl helmet and ride a bike just like many other vata types -- which BTW is the wrong exercise for a vata type. Ever notice how strident bicycle riders are? So I'll jump on the global warming bandwagon just to see the world become vegetarian. So you're joining the New World Order? :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question I would have is: Who has the free will? Very much, what we consider ourselves to be, is just a bundle of desires impressions, reactions etc. This is how most people define themselves. They say: this is who I am. And why? Because I wanted it that way. Research shows that most of what we want and think are rationalizations, and that decisions are formed in the brain a split second before we become aware of it! What we do, and what we say why we do something are two separate issues! Yes. Your view / experience is very similar to mine. (As we have discussed before -- me perhaps under a different name then.) If you call that entity, who decides for you, life or God, No need to attribute it to God, IMO. Nor to any predestination as Bronte presents in another post. or if it is simply the result of eternally cycling material processes is not my point here. My point is the illusory character of our selves. Yes, the result of action and reaction, learning, and conditioning. I can't do other than my nature. My nature is the sum total of the above. And for the skeptics who are in control of their lives -- tell me one thing: do thoughts just come -- naturally, effortlessly? Or do you volitional create your thoughts through effort and control? (As per prior posts, TM checking is the great Mahavakya, IMHO.) His belief in a separate ego and his own decision-making. An atheist in short believes in himself being in charge through his ratio[nal mind] This does not necessarily follow. I can be an atheist or agnostic and still have POV / experience of non-doership and non-predetermination (with massive degrees of freedom) -- all with no God, and no zombiness. Its all just the evolutionary culmination of the appartus -- mind,intellect, senses,cognitive abilities, education, culture, upbringing, learning, conditioning -- reacting to its karma. The great pin ball machine of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Off, snip Edg --- 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. But as TM checking (the stealth Mahavakya) clearly shows, Decartes was wrong. If Descartes had only followed Nab's advice, (and got checked) he would have said I don't create my thoughts, they just come. Thus I don't create my actions, they just run after thoughts. Therefore, thoughts just come, there is no thinker.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The good things TM gave us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. But as TM checking (the stealth Mahavakya) clearly shows, Decartes was wrong. If Descartes had only followed Nab's advice, (and got checked) he would have said I don't create my thoughts, they just come. Thus I don't create my actions, they just run after thoughts. Therefore, thoughts just come, there is no thinker. Shiva just dances for joy. He doesn't have to think about it. He just goes for it, like a bird singing, or the world turning. No need to 'think' about dancing for joy. Joy spurs the dancer to dance and the universe unfolds. Bliss is...therefore the universe dances. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] ~ Meltdown in Greenland Video ~
For the global warming naysayers: HYPERLINK http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-USbrand=msnbcvid=78e48cf7-c2c5-478 c-bb62-ce3d581014e6http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-USbrand=msnbcvi d=78e48cf7-c2c5-478c-bb62-ce3d581014e6 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 2:14 PM
[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 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Lurk. You're welcome. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mahesh and Hitler
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hannah Arendt's books The Origin of Totalitarianism was a very powerful awakening to me Yay(as in jai), Hanna. Half a Davis summer reading her.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A coup for junk science -- National Post
As was previously pointed out here, National Post is a garbage vanity press that was originally created by that convicted felon Con-rad Black as a propaganda vehicle. Not be taken seriously. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: Gore Derangement Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/297p42 Indeed: [It was] noted on the first few minutes of Fox News Sunday yesterday just how angry the conservative Republicans were about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Kristol disparaged Gore and the Nobel prize itself, saying it's a prize given by bloviators to a bloviator. Charles Krauthammer insisted the award goes to people whose politics are either anti-American or anti-Bush, and that's why [Gore] won it. These pundits were obviously bitter, much the same way National Review's Iain Murray was late last week, when he suggested Gore share his award with Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance in a September video harangue. (Apparently, to accept global warming is to embrace a terrorist philosophy.) It led Paul Krugman to ask a good question: What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane? The headline on Krugman's piece is entirely appropriate: Gore Derangement Syndrome. The whole derangement syndrome phenomenon stems from an increasingly common problem when contempt for a leader strays from simple political opposition to irrational, reflexive antagonism. If so-and-so says day, I'll say night, even if the sun is shining. It's more important to fight the perceived opponent than to make sense. And for far too long, that's exactly how the right has approached Gore and the science on global warming. The evidence must be wrong, because Gore believes it. The Nobel Peace Prize must be worthless, because Gore won it. These aren't arguments. They're sad and nonsensical temper-tantrums. Read Krugman's piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ref=opinion Other links here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/15/krugman-gore-drives-right- wingers-insane/ I actually posted the link to the Krugman piece in the NYT just to yank Shemp's chain (and the Arizona Diamondbacks went down in 4 games, so there, you Arizona Goldwater-channeler!). I think all the talk about global warming is absurd, in light of the myriad problems that all the stoopid human tricks create in the environment. There may or may not be human-caused warming that is not part of the geologic cycle of warming and cooling that has been going on for billions of years, but so what? What could stupid people (and 99.9+% of humans are profoundly stupid) do about a huge problem like that, when even trivial problems cannot be solved? The first step is to increase the intelligence level of human life on earth, and the TMO is accomplishing that. Problems are irrelevant, as people who live life from the cosmic level can easily deal with them. Al Gore's son was recently busted for an accident in which he was drink/drug driving -- he should be more concerned about getting his kid to practice TM regularly than a bunch of completely useless posturing about global warming...having said this, it's also true that the right-wing response to Gore is at least as stupid as his position. Really, I don't have a dog in this fight...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting Limits
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. We don't have the numbers. But here is what I have seen. Germany was in a state of mass hypnosis during Hitler's reign, Therefore TM'rs are Nazis? and, traveling to China and then coming back here has made me see that America is in a state of mass hypnosis now. Speak for yourself. I don't know why that is, but could large numbers of people meditating have that effect? No, Maharishi has stated it is brainwashing, not hypnosis.. It is not a stupid comparison, the comparison between America now and Hitler's Germany then. We are torturing people. Therefore TM'rs are Nazis? 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). And the English emptied the Scottish towns of their residents 300 years ago and sent them to die on ships to Canada. Therefore TM'rs are Nazis. 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 You won't see it because you have been hypnotized. You are not thinking straight. There will not be peace in matter, but great upheaval in matter...but that is only the surface of existence, so relax, and do not get caught up in that which has to change anyway. 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. Therefore TM'rs are Nazis? OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Al Gore's Nine Inconvenient Errors
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: The whole House of Cards that is An Inconvenient Truth falls apart if just 2 or 3 of the following are errors. According to whom? The judge has no scientific credentials. Yeah, unlike that noted scientist of letters, Al Gore. *** The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Now that he's won the Nobel Prize, Al Gore has a huge, international platform to fight global warming. Kind of sad . . . today he stepped onto that platform and it collapsed.
