[FairfieldLife] ASP?
Just saw Mr. Jarecki's documentary on the Friedman family. Got the impression the accusations were, at least in part, a rather clear case of anti-semitic persecution. http://www.cinescene.com/names/discussfried.htm
[FairfieldLife] Cocaine pasta
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4218522&page=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Judy the Clintonista
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > wrote: > > > > What I presented to you to back up my claim that Clinton was > > > > conservative was cold, hard facts: his voting record. > > > > > > Well, Clinton doesn't have a "voting record," of > > > course, never having been a member of the > > > legislature. I think you must have meant to say > > > "policy proposals," right? > > > > I mean his voting record vis a vis signing, as president, a > > piece of legislation as regards things such as the Welfare > > Reform and Defense of Marriage Act. For things such as the > > budget and NAFTA, I'm not 100% sure whether that is legislation, > > policy proposals, or presidential decree, but we know where he > > stands on them. None of this is "voting record." Signing legislation isn't "voting." > > > Assuming that's the case: His policy proposals are > > > cold, hard fact. Where those proposals put him on > > > the right-left spectrum is a *matter of opinion*. > > > > > > To back up the opinion that he's a centrist Democrat, > > > I provided references to the DLC, which *defines* > > > Democratic centrism; > > > >BUT THAT'S MY POINT, JUDY. > > > >YOU ARE THE ONE WHO GETS TO DEFINE IT, NOT SOMEONE YOU READ ABOUT. > >YOU, JUDY STEIN. > > > >FORGET ABOUT BEING PART OF THE CROWD. Stop shouting, or this conversation is over. Now, listen up: You demanded *evidence*. How I define Clinton's record isn't "evidence," it's my opinion. And I've given you that as well. Stop flailing around, please. > > > and to Matt Stoller, who runs a > > > highly influential Democratic centrist blog--not to > > > mention Bill Clinton himself, who considers himself > > > a Democratic centrist. > > > >Well, he can hardly publicize himself as a right-wing or > >conservative Democrat, can he? Non sequitur. > >Actually, I remember seeing a headline on the Drudgereport in > >Clinton's last year of office in which it quoted Clinton calling > >himself a conservative but despite my trying to find it in order to > >reference it I haven't been able to. Serves you right for taking anything Drudge reports as gospel. Haven't you figured out yet that he's unreliable, *particularly* where the Clintons are concerned? > >I would define Clinton as either a conservative or a right-of- > >center Democrat...possibly a "centrist" but certainly not a > Democrat centrist. You're also confusing the record of what he accomplished with what he *wanted* to accomplish. In terms of defining Clinton's political leanings, the latter is what you should be looking at. There was a great deal he wanted to do that he wasn't able to get through the Republican Congress, including health care reform and allowing gays in the military. The Republicans blocked health care reform, and Clinton was forced to compromise on gays in the military with "Don't ask, don't tell." > > > I also provided a link to Wikipedia's "Third Way" > > > article--a synonym for Democratic centrism--which > > > also considers Clinton a Democratic centrist. And > > > it defines "third way" politics in a way that matches > > > Bill Clinton's policy proposals very neatly indeed. > > > >Well, that's THEIR opinion. I didn't ask for their opinion > >but for your's. Make up your mind. Two posts ago you were demanding *evidence*. When I gave you evidence, you demanded my opinion. And I've given you that as well. > >But it's not just me, Judy. It's really by any objective > >standard of measurement of what is conservative and what is > >liberal Oh, please. Your standard isn't the least bit objective. Plus which, you don't understand what Democratic centrism is. That's why I gave you URLs to pages that defined it. > and, by golly, as I wrote above, he's just got so many > conservative policies on his record. Much, much more > than George Bush, for example (and that goes for both > father and son!). That's so ridiculous I don't know where to start. > > > What can I say? I look at the same legislation > > > and activities and conclude that he's a centrist. > > > >Well, if that's what being a centrist is, boy, I sure would > >love to see what being a CONSERVATIVE Democrat or a right-of- > >center Democrat would be. Look it up on the Web, Shemp. > > > S-CHIP, family leave, gun control, earned income > > > credit, cutting back on defense, increasing minimum > > > wage, increasing tax rates on the top 2 percent, > > > deficit reduction, appointment of women and people > > > of color to high positions, defense of abortion > > > rights and affirmative action, chemical weapons > > > convention, Kyoto treaty, appointment of Ginsberg > > > and Breyer to the Supreme Court...etc., etc. > > > >Yes, and you'd be right that these things are liberal, although > >some of the things you list, such as deficit reduction, I consider >
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
Barry writes snipped: And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no "progress" possible. TomT: The reason it is called ignorance is that one actually is able to ignore that which they always have been and will always be. It is not called stupid or smart or arrogant or gratuitous or a lie it is called IGNORANCE. Name and form.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Judy the Clintonista
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" >wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, then, since they don't say what I claim they say >and, > > > > > > > apparently, they say what YOU claim, it shouldn't be too > > > > > > > difficult for you to list the reasons why the Clintons >are > > > > > > > centrist Democrats. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've listed my evidence. Now see if you can put all that > > > > > > > triangulating to good use and list your evidence, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesus, Shemp. It's the *same evidence*. Any > > > > > > recital of Clinton's policies is going to list > > > > > > the same ones. What they add up to is *centrism*-- > > > > > > neither all conservative nor all liberal, but a > > > > > > mixture, so they're in the, you know, center. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody's saying he didn't take some relatively > > > > > > conservative positions, but he also took some > > > > > > relatively liberal positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you never heard of the DLC? > > > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice who was the first chair of the DLC. > > > > > > > > > > Just as I thought. She couldn't come up with anything. > > > > > > > > Did you read the Wikipedia article, Shemp? > > > > > > > > I think you have some fantasy that the "evidence" > > > > you're demanding I provide would have to be a whole > > > > slew of liberal things Clinton did in secret, which > > > > of course doesn't exist. > > > > > > > > What I'm trying to point out to you is that what > > > > he actually did--including all the things mentioned > > > > in the articles you cited--*makes him a centrist > > > > Democrat*, not a conservative. But in order to > > > > grasp that fact, you need to understand *what a > > > > centrist Democrat is*. > > > > > > > > That's why I referred you to the Wikipedia article > > > > on the DLC, which is *the* centrist organization > > > > for Democrats; it *defines* Democratic centrism. > > > > > > > > This is how the article begins: > > > > > > > > "The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation > > > > [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should > > > > shift away from traditionally populist positions [i.e., shift > > > > away from the left toward the center--JS]. The DLC hails > > > > President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way > > > > politicians and as a DLC success story" > > > > > > > > Next you should read another Wikipedia aritcle, > > > > this one on "third way" politics (see last sentence > > > > above). It begins: > > > > > > > > The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political > > > > philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and > > > > interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both > > > > socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, > > > > but chiefly stresses technological development, education, > > > > and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and > > > > governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been > > > > described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its > > > > proponents.[2]... > > > > > > > > A "Third Way" approach has been adopted by some social > > > > democrats and social liberals in many Western liberal > > > > democracies.[4] The most recent prominent examples being the > > > > Clinton Administration in the United States, the Liberal Party > > > > government of Canada under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the > > > > Labour Party governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair > > > > and Gordon Brown, and the Australian Labor Party under Kevin > > > > Rudd. > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism) > > > > > > > > And finally, here's a definition of "third way" > > > > Democratic centrism from Matt Stoller of the > > > > very influential blog MyDD: > > > > > > > > What makes us moderates is the belief that while ideological > > > > movements have had some enormously positive and important >impacts > > > > on America, we believe that there is also a critical role for > > > > what Arthur Schlesinger famously described as "the vital center" > > > > - a place that often seeks alternatives to more rigid >ideological > > > > viewpoints and is grounded in a pragmatic spirit of problem- > > > > solving. Bill Clinton, one our most successful presidents, >proved > > > > that to be true. And so did history's giants - from the Founders > > > > to Lincoln to FDR, America has moved forwa
[FairfieldLife] YouTube - Ron Paul Goes to the Zoo (ver.2.0)
HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9At-PejXNIw"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9 At-PejXNIw No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.17/1252 - Release Date: 1/30/2008 8:51 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
Billy, I took my dog out for a walk and when he took a shit your smiling, sattvic face came to mind. Dude, WTF? What is this nonsense? My Dad has a good label for guys like you Pete. He would say, "That Peter is 'with it.' He's really on the ball." Nothing gets past you here brother. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed > > her mind to be > > > > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) > > > > > > > > > Then how exactly do you masturbate? Internet > > porn? (If the answer > is > > > that you do not please include an address where I > > can send the > > >>flowers > > > and condolences) > > > > Curtis-I read this recently and funnily enough your > > name popped into > > my head: > > > > I quote, "The influence of the force of avidya (the > > individuality of > > the ego) is such that no matter how irksome the > > illusion, deluded man > > is loath to part with it...The confirmed > > materialist, captive in his > > own realm of 'reality', is ignorant in, and of, his > > deluded state and > > therefore has no wish, nor will, to exchange it for > > the sole Reality, > > Spirit. > > > > He perceives the temporal world as reality, eternal > > substance-(insofar > > as he is able to grasp the concept of eternity). He > > imagines the > > grossness of sensory experience to be the pure > > essence of feeling and > > perception. He fabricates his OWN standards of > > morality and behavior > > and calls them good, irrespective of their inharmony > > with eternal > > Divine Law. > > > > And he thinks that his ego, his mortal sense of > > being, with its > > inflated self-importance as the almighty doer, is > > the image of his > > soul as created by God." Swami Yogananda > > Billy, I took my dog out for a walk and when he took a > shit your smiling, sattvic face came to mind. Dude, > WTF? What is this nonsense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "curtisdeltablues" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed > her mind to be > > > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) > > > > > > Then how exactly do you masturbate? Internet > porn? (If the answer > is > > that you do not please include an address where I > can send the > >>flowers > > and condolences) > > Curtis-I read this recently and funnily enough your > name popped into > my head: > > I quote, "The influence of the force of avidya (the > individuality of > the ego) is such that no matter how irksome the > illusion, deluded man > is loath to part with it...The confirmed > materialist, captive in his > own realm of 'reality', is ignorant in, and of, his > deluded state and > therefore has no wish, nor will, to exchange it for > the sole Reality, > Spirit. > > He perceives the temporal world as reality, eternal > substance-(insofar > as he is able to grasp the concept of eternity). He > imagines the > grossness of sensory experience to be the pure > essence of feeling and > perception. He fabricates his OWN standards of > morality and behavior > and calls them good, irrespective of their inharmony > with eternal > Divine Law. > > And he thinks that his ego, his mortal sense of > being, with its > inflated self-importance as the almighty doer, is > the image of his > soul as created by God." Swami Yogananda Billy, I took my dog out for a walk and when he took a shit your smiling, sattvic face came to mind. Dude, WTF? What is this nonsense? > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Miracle
There is a HUGE difference between the experiential reality of "God is all" and the idea or mental construct of "God is all." --- Ben Gilberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe you're right, because even though miracles > can occur on > occasion with the "God is All" idea, it only seems > to work about 20% of > the time. So there are other factors involved that > I'm unaware of. > And 20% reliability is certainly nothing you would > want to depend upon. > > -- Ben > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -Excellent, thanks!...But God is All doesn't imply > that your > > condition would be healed. Anything is possible. > (A favorite > > statement of MMY). In a Many Worlds interpretation > of QM, an infinite > > variety of possibilities may emerge, all within/as > "God is All"; so > > the possibility of getting an infected appendix > was still there. I'm > > extending the QM case into the macro-world for the > sake of argument. > > Clearly, something relative was at work to orient > the course of > > events into that outcome. We should look to > relative causes and > > effects, possibly some form of Shakti or > mind-control. > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti > b7gilberti@ > > wrote: > > > > > > A few folks are saying this "God is All" > business is just > > farfetched fantasy, without very much value. So I > want to mention > > how I used it to work a miracle. > > > > > > If you're ill, simply go for the highest > realization you can, but > > at the same time always do the practical thing. > One time I had > > appendicitus. I started working on realizing that > God's allness made > > such a diseased condition impossible, unreal, > nonexistent and so on. > > > > > > But at the same time, I called the doctor, was > rushed to the > > hospital, and processed and prepped for the > surgery. Meantime I kept > > reaching for the high vision that would make the > disease dissolve > > into the nothingness from whence it came. God is > all, God is > > wholeness, there can be no disease in God, and > since God is all, > > there can be no disease in me eiither, and so on > and so on. > > > > > > Well, as luck would have it, around 15 minutes > before I would > > have been rolled into the operating room, the > appendicitus just > > pooof! up and vanished! A full fledged miraculous > healing. It > > happened. The doctors went nuts. White blood count > was normal now, > > nothing found on palpation, etc, etc. > > > > > > But I wasn't stupid, I went the medical route as > well, you see, > > so that if I didn't make it to a realization that > would make a > > miracle, I would have then gone into surgery and > had it taken care of > > in that manner. So you can play both sides at the > same time. You > > can play it safe, and still reach for the > miraculous. And as you can > > see, God is All is a real fact and it can induce > bonafide, genuine > > miracles. Not always. But sometimes. > > > > > > Much Love, > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > - > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find > them fast with Yahoo! > > Search. > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Miracle
I believe you're right, because even though miracles can occur on occasion with the "God is All" idea, it only seems to work about 20% of the time. So there are other factors involved that I'm unaware of. And 20% reliability is certainly nothing you would want to depend upon. -- Ben --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Excellent, thanks!...But God is All doesn't imply that your > condition would be healed. Anything is possible. (A favorite > statement of MMY). In a Many Worlds interpretation of QM, an infinite > variety of possibilities may emerge, all within/as "God is All"; so > the possibility of getting an infected appendix was still there. I'm > extending the QM case into the macro-world for the sake of argument. > Clearly, something relative was at work to orient the course of > events into that outcome. We should look to relative causes and > effects, possibly some form of Shakti or mind-control. > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti b7gilberti@ > wrote: > > > > A few folks are saying this "God is All" business is just > farfetched fantasy, without very much value. So I want to mention > how I used it to work a miracle. > > > > If you're ill, simply go for the highest realization you can, but > at the same time always do the practical thing. One time I had > appendicitus. I started working on realizing that God's allness made > such a diseased condition impossible, unreal, nonexistent and so on. > > > > But at the same time, I called the doctor, was rushed to the > hospital, and processed and prepped for the surgery. Meantime I kept > reaching for the high vision that would make the disease dissolve > into the nothingness from whence it came. God is all, God is > wholeness, there can be no disease in God, and since God is all, > there can be no disease in me eiither, and so on and so on. > > > > Well, as luck would have it, around 15 minutes before I would > have been rolled into the operating room, the appendicitus just > pooof! up and vanished! A full fledged miraculous healing. It > happened. The doctors went nuts. White blood count was normal now, > nothing found on palpation, etc, etc. > > > > But I wasn't stupid, I went the medical route as well, you see, > so that if I didn't make it to a realization that would make a > miracle, I would have then gone into surgery and had it taken care of > in that manner. So you can play both sides at the same time. You > can play it safe, and still reach for the miraculous. And as you can > see, God is All is a real fact and it can induce bonafide, genuine > miracles. Not always. But sometimes. > > > > Much Love, > > > > Ben > > > > > > - > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! > Search. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Miracle
-Excellent, thanks!...But God is All doesn't imply that your condition would be healed. Anything is possible. (A favorite statement of MMY). In a Many Worlds interpretation of QM, an infinite variety of possibilities may emerge, all within/as "God is All"; so the possibility of getting an infected appendix was still there. I'm extending the QM case into the macro-world for the sake of argument. Clearly, something relative was at work to orient the course of events into that outcome. We should look to relative causes and effects, possibly some form of Shakti or mind-control. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A few folks are saying this "God is All" business is just farfetched fantasy, without very much value. So I want to mention how I used it to work a miracle. > > If you're ill, simply go for the highest realization you can, but at the same time always do the practical thing. One time I had appendicitus. I started working on realizing that God's allness made such a diseased condition impossible, unreal, nonexistent and so on. > > But at the same time, I called the doctor, was rushed to the hospital, and processed and prepped for the surgery. Meantime I kept reaching for the high vision that would make the disease dissolve into the nothingness from whence it came. God is all, God is wholeness, there can be no disease in God, and since God is all, there can be no disease in me eiither, and so on and so on. > > Well, as luck would have it, around 15 minutes before I would have been rolled into the operating room, the appendicitus just pooof! up and vanished! A full fledged miraculous healing. It happened. The doctors went nuts. White blood count was normal now, nothing found on palpation, etc, etc. > > But I wasn't stupid, I went the medical route as well, you see, so that if I didn't make it to a realization that would make a miracle, I would have then gone into surgery and had it taken care of in that manner. So you can play both sides at the same time. You can play it safe, and still reach for the miraculous. And as you can see, God is All is a real fact and it can induce bonafide, genuine miracles. Not always. But sometimes. > > Much Love, > > Ben > > > - > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
On Jan 30, 2008, at 5:49 PM, yifuxero wrote: ---The Ultimate Reality in Nichiren's Buddhism can be equated with "The Class of All Sets", which can be inferred to exist. Entities within the Ultimate Reality (they can only be in It, as It - holographic projects); are limited in scope since a subset can't partake fully of the Whole. The "class of all sets" sounds suspiciously like dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda). But all in all, it is a definition of shunyata, groundlessness, as ultimate (absolute) reality. Which is fine as long as you get that the Two Truths include an absolute and a relative...otherwise it just becomes a another form of absolutism...Holons are not excluded from that...
[FairfieldLife] A Real Miracle
A few folks are saying this "God is All" business is just farfetched fantasy, without very much value. So I want to mention how I used it to work a miracle. If you're ill, simply go for the highest realization you can, but at the same time always do the practical thing. One time I had appendicitus. I started working on realizing that God's allness made such a diseased condition impossible, unreal, nonexistent and so on. But at the same time, I called the doctor, was rushed to the hospital, and processed and prepped for the surgery. Meantime I kept reaching for the high vision that would make the disease dissolve into the nothingness from whence it came. God is all, God is wholeness, there can be no disease in God, and since God is all, there can be no disease in me eiither, and so on and so on. Well, as luck would have it, around 15 minutes before I would have been rolled into the operating room, the appendicitus just pooof! up and vanished! A full fledged miraculous healing. It happened. The doctors went nuts. White blood count was normal now, nothing found on palpation, etc, etc. But I wasn't stupid, I went the medical route as well, you see, so that if I didn't make it to a realization that would make a miracle, I would have then gone into surgery and had it taken care of in that manner. So you can play both sides at the same time. You can play it safe, and still reach for the miraculous. And as you can see, God is All is a real fact and it can induce bonafide, genuine miracles. Not always. But sometimes. Much Love, Ben - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
[FairfieldLife] Spiritually hot in FF, Devi Mandir
Sri Devi Mandir 800 W. Burlington, Fairfield, IA WEEKDAY SCHEDULE MONDAYS THURSDAYS 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam Daily Pujas for all Dieties Daily Pujas for all Dieties 6:30 - 8 pm Rudra Abhishekam 7 7:30 pm Arati Lord Shiva Puja Arati TUESDAYS FRIDAYS 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam Daily Pujas for all Dieties Daily Pujas for all Dieties 7 - 8 pm Lord Hanuman Puja/Hanuman Chalisa 7 pm Mother Divine Puja Arati Lalita Sahasranama Chanting Arati WEDNESDAYS 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam EVERY MONTH ON FULL MOON Daily Pujas for all Dieties Lord Satyanarayana Puja 7 - 7:30 pm Arati 7 8:30 pm WEEKEND SCHEDULE SATURDAYS SUNDAYS 9:30 am Rudra Abhishekam 10 am noon Rudra Abhishekam Daily Pujas for all Dieties Vishnu Sahasranama Chanting 9 Planet Homa Arati 6:30 - 8 pm Evening Puja 3 pm 8 pm Temple Open Vishnu Sahasranama Chanting 7 7:30 pm Evening Puja and Arati Arati All events are free and open to the public Please bring fruit and flowers For more information, please contact: 641-469-6041
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
---The Ultimate Reality in Nichiren's Buddhism can be equated with "The Class of All Sets", which can be inferred to exist. Entities within the Ultimate Reality (they can only be in It, as It - holographic projects); are limited in scope since a subset can't partake fully of the Whole. The foregoing is not directly connected to Enlightenment, since even the Enlightened are infinitely short of a thorough understanding of the Ultimate Reality; (in spite of what some would have us believe). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Ok, let's see. :-) > > > > > > Well, what follows has nothing whatsoever to do > > > with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" > > > question. But I'll respond to it on its own > > > terms. > > > > > > > Assume -- hypothetically, for the purpose of > > > > discussion -- that there is no such thing as > > > > an "ultimate reality," a highest state of > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > Got that? > > > > > > > > Now, with that assumption in mind, explain > > > > to me why someone would want to claim that > > > > there IS an "ultimate reality," a highest > > > > state of consciousness. > > > > > > Because that's how they interpret their > > > experience. Or, if they haven't had an > > > experience that they can interpret that > > > way, because they find the case others > > > have made for it convincing. > > > > I came up with a few others. If I knew that > > there was no such thing as an "ultimate > > reality" there are MANY reasons why I > > might claim that there was: > > Wait, your question was why would somebody > claim there was an ultimate reality when > they knew there wasn't? > > That's not what you said to start with. > > But it doesn't matter. You were trying to > demonstrate that what I had asked Curtis > was a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" > question, and you sure failed big-time at > that. > > As well as at all the other accusations you > were flinging at me... > > Typical. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Check out my Facebook profile
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nenad, please tell me why you felt it was relevant to post this to FairfieldLife. Do you share interests with our members? If not, and youâre just spamming a lot of chat groups, Iâll delete your membership. Yeees Jagsamesh. I am very much interest into your American Woman as in Pam Anderson with large pontoons like milk cow for fun sexy time as in having the romance (on her stomach). Must have minimum of one year plow experience and not be married to more than two other men, or three if third man is very small and only likes to watch. (or film for facebook video sexytime adventure) Please to read message to your women and order them to join so that they may get in wife cages when I marry some of them. (not to use cattle prod much, but just enough) Please to avoid to read message to woman who have too much of opinion as in having a thought or try to understand what a man can or to try to read like man, ( I have a joke...woman who try to read is like fish try to ride bicycle! Funny yes?) or have no calluses on hands. (no good for plow) Jaquish, Borat > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nenad Kuzmanovic > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:54 PM > To: fairfieldlife > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Check out my Facebook profile > > > > > > facebook > > > > > > Check out my Facebook profile > > > I set up a Facebook profile with my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. > > Thanks, > Nenad > > Here's the link: > HYPERLINK "http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1057523183&k=Z5L5QYU2VYVM5BG1T133WT&r&v=2"http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1057523183&k=Z5L5QYU2VYVM5BG1T133WT&r&v=2 > > > > > This e-mail may contain promotional materials. If you do not wish to receive future commercial mailings from Facebook, please HYPERLINK "http://www.facebook.com/o.php?u=1030523060&k=e29a6b"opt out. Facebook's offices are located at 156 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM >
RE: [FairfieldLife] Check out my Facebook profile
Nenad, please tell me why you felt it was relevant to post this to FairfieldLife. Do you share interests with our members? If not, and you’re just spamming a lot of chat groups, I’ll delete your membership. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nenad Kuzmanovic Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:54 PM To: fairfieldlife Subject: [FairfieldLife] Check out my Facebook profile facebook Check out my Facebook profile I set up a Facebook profile with my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Nenad Here's the link: HYPERLINK "http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1057523183&k=Z5L5QYU2VYVM5BG1T133WT&r&v=2"http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1057523183&k=Z5L5QYU2VYVM5BG1T133WT&r&v=2 This e-mail may contain promotional materials. If you do not wish to receive future commercial mailings from Facebook, please HYPERLINK "http://www.facebook.com/o.php?u=1030523060&k=e29a6b"opt out. Facebook's offices are located at 156 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Grains of rice...
Did you notice that there were four mice running around that room? I demand a recount! Cool idea. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Grains of rice are used in an art project to display the number of people in > various groups, including the group of people hugged by Amma. > > HYPERLINK "http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/01/29/vlog-mark-frauenfeld.html"; > \nhttp://tv.boingboing.net/2008/01/29/vlog-mark-frauenfeld.html > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 > 9:51 AM >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, let's see. :-) > > > > Well, what follows has nothing whatsoever to do > > with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" > > question. But I'll respond to it on its own > > terms. > > > > > Assume -- hypothetically, for the purpose of > > > discussion -- that there is no such thing as > > > an "ultimate reality," a highest state of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > Got that? > > > > > > Now, with that assumption in mind, explain > > > to me why someone would want to claim that > > > there IS an "ultimate reality," a highest > > > state of consciousness. > > > > Because that's how they interpret their > > experience. Or, if they haven't had an > > experience that they can interpret that > > way, because they find the case others > > have made for it convincing. > > I came up with a few others. If I knew that > there was no such thing as an "ultimate > reality" there are MANY reasons why I > might claim that there was: Wait, your question was why would somebody claim there was an ultimate reality when they knew there wasn't? That's not what you said to start with. But it doesn't matter. You were trying to demonstrate that what I had asked Curtis was a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, and you sure failed big-time at that. As well as at all the other accusations you were flinging at me... Typical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Judy the Clintonista
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well, then, since they don't say what I claim they say and, > > > > > apparently, they say what YOU claim, it shouldn't be too > > > > > difficult for you to list the reasons why the Clintons are > > > > > centrist Democrats. > > > > > > > > > > I've listed my evidence. Now see if you can put all that > > > > > triangulating to good use and list your evidence, too. > > > > > > > > Jesus, Shemp. It's the *same evidence*. Any > > > > recital of Clinton's policies is going to list > > > > the same ones. What they add up to is *centrism*-- > > > > neither all conservative nor all liberal, but a > > > > mixture, so they're in the, you know, center. > > > > > > > > Nobody's saying he didn't take some relatively > > > > conservative positions, but he also took some > > > > relatively liberal positions. > > > > > > > > Have you never heard of the DLC? > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council > > > > > > > > Notice who was the first chair of the DLC. > > > > > > Just as I thought. She couldn't come up with anything. > > > > Did you read the Wikipedia article, Shemp? > > > > I think you have some fantasy that the "evidence" > > you're demanding I provide would have to be a whole > > slew of liberal things Clinton did in secret, which > > of course doesn't exist. > > > > What I'm trying to point out to you is that what > > he actually did--including all the things mentioned > > in the articles you cited--*makes him a centrist > > Democrat*, not a conservative. But in order to > > grasp that fact, you need to understand *what a > > centrist Democrat is*. > > > > That's why I referred you to the Wikipedia article > > on the DLC, which is *the* centrist organization > > for Democrats; it *defines* Democratic centrism. > > > > This is how the article begins: > > > > "The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation > > [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should > > shift away from traditionally populist positions [i.e., shift > > away from the left toward the center--JS]. The DLC hails > > President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way > > politicians and as a DLC success story" > > > > Next you should read another Wikipedia aritcle, > > this one on "third way" politics (see last sentence > > above). It begins: > > > > The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political > > philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and > > interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both > > socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, > > but chiefly stresses technological development, education, > > and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and > > governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been > > described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its > > proponents.[2]... > > > > A "Third Way" approach has been adopted by some social > > democrats and social liberals in many Western liberal > > democracies.[4] The most recent prominent examples being the > > Clinton Administration in the United States, the Liberal Party > > government of Canada under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the > > Labour Party governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair > > and Gordon Brown, and the Australian Labor Party under Kevin > > Rudd. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism) > > > > And finally, here's a definition of "third way" > > Democratic centrism from Matt Stoller of the > > very influential blog MyDD: > > > > What makes us moderates is the belief that while ideological > > movements have had some enormously positive and important impacts > > on America, we believe that there is also a critical role for > > what Arthur Schlesinger famously described as "the vital center" > > - a place that often seeks alternatives to more rigid ideological > > viewpoints and is grounded in a pragmatic spirit of problem- > > solving. Bill Clinton, one our most successful presidents, proved > > that to be true. And so did history's giants - from the Founders > > to Lincoln to FDR, America has moved forward by the combined > > efforts of passionate and boundary-stretching outside agitators > > and more practical inside advocates. And some of our nation's most > > significant policy gains have been made when our leaders have come > > together to find principled common ground. > > > > http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/7/125621/6667 > > > > You would do well to read the entire post. > > > > I read your "evidence." If you're not going to > > read mine, STFU. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Grains of rice...
Grains of rice are used in an art project to display the number of people in various groups, including the group of people hugged by Amma. HYPERLINK "http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/01/29/vlog-mark-frauenfeld.html"; \nhttp://tv.boingboing.net/2008/01/29/vlog-mark-frauenfeld.html No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
> > Ok, let's see. :-) > > Well, what follows has nothing whatsoever to do > with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" > question. But I'll respond to it on its own > terms. > > > Assume -- hypothetically, for the purpose of > > discussion -- that there is no such thing as > > an "ultimate reality," a highest state of > > consciousness. > > > > Got that? > > > > Now, with that assumption in mind, explain > > to me why someone would want to claim that > > there IS an "ultimate reality," a highest > > state of consciousness. > > Because that's how they interpret their > experience. Or, if they haven't had an > experience that they can interpret that > way, because they find the case others > have made for it convincing. I came up with a few others. If I knew that there was no such thing as an "ultimate reality" there are MANY reasons why I might claim that there was: 1. I could be trying to sell something to other people that was based on the idea that there IS an ultimate reality. I know that there isn't, but I can't sell my product (belief system, religion) unless I convince them that there is. 2. I could be trying to establish a position of dominance or power over others, by convin- cing them that I know the nature of the "ulti- mate reality" while they don't. 3. I might be trying to do actual psychological damage to the people I was talking to, getting them to believe something that isn't true. 4. I might be doing it as a kind of troll, just to fuck with people, like Shemp does. 5. I might be doing it because even though there *isn't* any such thing as an "ultimate reality" and now I realize that, I'm part of a group that believes that there IS such a thing as an ultimate reality, and I don't want to be thrown out of the group for being a heretic. 6. I know that there is no such thing as an "ultimate reality," but a lot of people around me think there is, and I want to "fit in," so I'll pretend that there is, too. 7. If there is no ultimate reality, how can I pose as more knowledgeable than the people around me, who also know that there is no ultimate reality? Therefore, because it's important to me to be perceived as more knowledgeable, I will lie and pretend to know the "ultimate reality" whereas they don't. ...and so on... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Check out my Facebook profile
I set up a Facebook profile with my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Nenad Here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1057523183&k=Z5L5QYU2VYVM5BG1T133WT&r&v=2 ___ This e-mail may contain promotional materials. If you do not wish to receive future commercial mailings from Facebook, please click on the link below. Facebook's offices are located at 156 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?u=1030523060&k=e29a6b
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > This "hypothetical" technique of yours could > > > be summed up as: > > > > > > "Pretend that I'm right, and then we can talk. > > > If you don't pretend I'm right, we can't." > > > > Wow, you obviously find hypothetical discussions > > tremendously threatening if that's the only way > > you can sum them up. > > > > > Get it, and its similarity to "Have you stopped > > > beating your wife?" :-) > > > > Not even remotely similar. > > Ok, let's see. :-) Well, what follows has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. But I'll respond to it on its own terms. > Assume -- hypothetically, for the purpose of > discussion -- that there is no such thing as > an "ultimate reality," a highest state of > consciousness. > > Got that? > > Now, with that assumption in mind, explain > to me why someone would want to claim that > there IS an "ultimate reality," a highest > state of consciousness. Because that's how they interpret their experience. Or, if they haven't had an experience that they can interpret that way, because they find the case others have made for it convincing. > Remember, you've just agreed to assume that > there isn't. Right. > Now, with that assumption in place, tell me > why you would argue that there is. Done. > I'll wait. Good. Be pretty silly of you not to, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > You > > > are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- > > > cussion in such a way that the other person > > > has to agree to something that he doesn't > > > believe in order to participate in the dis- > > > cussion. > > > > > > It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe > > > what you believe and let others believe what they > > > believe? Why do you want to force them to believe > > > something else, even if just theoretically? (Actually, *this* is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.) > > Why are you so protective of your own belief > > system that you can't let go of it even just for > > the sake of a discussion? > > Why are you so aggressive about imposing > your belief system on others that you > demand that they agree to yours -- at > least theoretically -- before *having* > the discussion? I'm sorry, why do I demand they assent to a hypothetical before having a discussion about the implications of that hypothetical? Is that really what you're asking? There are lots of possible discussions on this topic. One possible discussion involves the hypothetical I proposed. If you don't want to have that particular discussion, you don't have to participate, nor does Curtis. But it didn't seem to bother him any. > It seems to me that the only reason you'd > want to do that is because you want to > "prove yourself right." Uh, no. I was asking Curtis a hypothetical question having to do with the offensiveness quotient of Yogananda's assertions about enlightenment. What I'm suggesting is that the offensiveness quotient varies depending on whether Yogananda's view of enlightenment is correct (i.e., that there is one Ultimate Reality). In other words, I'm asking Curtis to give Yogananda the benefit of the doubt: Maybe Yogananda's assertions were just as offensive as Curtis said. Or, maybe not. Why, given that we can't know for sure, do you have such a negative reaction to considering two alternate possibilities? > I don't have any such need with my beliefs. > I don't think Curtis does either. Why do you? Actually, Barry, you are *much* more protective of your beliefs, and you get much more agitated at someone who holds different beliefs, than I do (and certainly *way* more than Curtis does). You've just demonstrated it in this exchange. You can't tolerate considering an alternative belief *even hypothetically*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
If you take out his > > speculations about what others are experiencing, you end up with > > very little that is more than unsupported assertion. > > Even if you leave them *in*, it's still a bunch of > unsupported assertions. > > Any assertion about enlightenment is unsupportable > by definition, because enlightenment is *subjective*. Well I'm all for descriptions of subjective experiences. They rest on their own. It is the assertions about what they mean that requires support. For example if an experience of "unboundedness" becomes an assertion that it is the home of all the laws of nature, and that acting from that state allows someone to do extraordinary things like flying, then lets see it. That claim can be supported by evidence which would support the theory and the beginning of a growth of knowledge would result. A claim of perfect subjective "knowingness" would not achieve that support. Although MMY has not delivered on this connection, I think he theoretically got it right. > > > > The confidence in "self evident" knowledge which needs no further > > epistemological support is not something I share with some of the > > yoga traditions, including Yogananda. > > What's the alternative? What kind of "epistemological > support" do you imagine there could be? MMY imagines that there could be a body of evidence that could enlarge science's theoretical understanding of how life works. I also think it is possible. If a person claims to be in the home of all knowledge let him get in there and pull out the cure for cancer. I could be convinced. > > So I view claims of ultimate > > knowledge or reality with skepticism. The guys strapping > > on the bombs are absolutely sure too, as we have often > > discussed. Being absolutely sure about one's view is not > > a virtue in my book. > > Are you absolutely sure of that? I am sure that I don't hold it as a virtue yes. I hold a value in a scientific perspective of the growth of knowledge. I think it is a better route to knowing than authority based assertions while being absolutely sure about ones POV based on stories in scripture. I do not adhere to absolute skepticism about human knowledge. I think we can have some confidence about what we know until better information comes in. So I do have confidence in this as a valuable process. I don't relate to it as being absolutely sure. It might evolve into something better. But authority from scriptures and yogis is probably not going to be it. > > I suspect you'll say no, you're not absolutely sure. > So why can't you give Yogananda the benefit of the > doubt? He is absolutely sure of his content. I am confident in a process. Yogananda doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because I know what he basis his confidence in and I don't share it. If he wants to step down to an equal level of confidence over absolutely knowing something I would respect his POv more. He is absolutely sure he understands the experiences he has due to his faith in his interpretation of Hindu scriptures and his faith in the perspective of his teacher Yukteswar. I don't share that faith. > > > Now that I think of it, even MMY does a better job of not > > rubbing in the "you are ignorant, I am not" subtext of a > > discussion of higher states. I rarely feel like I am being > > put down as he describes his view of human potential. > > He doesn't put it in personal terms, but he certainly > does make the contrast. What I'm getting at is that > it's impossible to talk about higher states *without* > drawing contrasts, even if they're only implicit. I am all for hearing about how a person used to view the world and how they see it now. Plenty of people do it without putting down people who view it differently. The most intelligent people I have met in my life, by my estimation of course, exhibited a quality of humility towards their own POv. They were aware that there are many options and ways to look at things. I can't think of any area of human knowledge except religion where a person's absolute confidence, when separated from their supporting reasons, is accepted. I think you are combining the ineffable nature of some subjective experiences, which I do take pretty much at face value when someone report them, with the claims of what this means for human knowledge. In the second case all the tools of epistemology apply. I think it is one of MMY's most brilliant moves that he seems to understand this distinction. He expressed it really well in his marketing of TM. How committed he is to using it as a guiding principle in his knowledge is another matter. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Andrew Sullivan on TM and MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi Steps Down > 30 Jan 2008 12:09 pm > > Or rather shifts imperceptibly in his seat, and giggles a little. > Bliss is bliss. Retirement must feel even better. (And, yes, I've > been trained in TM and recommend it.) > > > > He links to the Reuters article: > > http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-31636820080128 > "Feldman said the Maharishi's work would live on because he has trained tens of thousands of teachers over the years." Selective truth telling? JohnY Ben was on my TTC ...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > This "hypothetical" technique of yours could > > be summed up as: > > > > "Pretend that I'm right, and then we can talk. > > If you don't pretend I'm right, we can't." > > Wow, you obviously find hypothetical discussions > tremendously threatening if that's the only way > you can sum them up. > > > Get it, and its similarity to "Have you stopped > > beating your wife?" :-) > > Not even remotely similar. Ok, let's see. :-) Assume -- hypothetically, for the purpose of discussion -- that there is no such thing as an "ultimate reality," a highest state of consciousness. Got that? Now, with that assumption in mind, explain to me why someone would want to claim that there IS an "ultimate reality," a highest state of consciousness. Remember, you've just agreed to assume that there isn't. Now, with that assumption in place, tell me why you would argue that there is. I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Immersed in God's Allness
When were quiet and listen to God, in no time we know clearly that God is All, and all that there possibly can be. There is nothing but God. So there cant be God and something besides. You know that God cannot be sick or poor or in pain. So sickness, poverty and pain are impossible and preposterous, since God is all, and All is God. If God cannot have sickness, poverty, pain, then they do not exist and cant ever be, for God is all and there is nothing else. While they cant possibly be, theyll appear if you think they can be, but vanish once you know that they cant. Apply this understanding of God is all to whatever trouble, care or worry you have. Simply expose their nothingness by realizing that God cant have them and nothing but God can exist. As light dissolves darkness merely by showing you that its not there, you dissolve what God isnt merely by knowing that its not God, and knowing whats not God cant exist. So if theres a belief in sickness, pain, or disease, know with all your heart that God cannot be sick or diseased or in pain; and that there is nothing else but God. God is perfection, harmony, health and wholeness now, here, and always, and there is nothing but God. Nothing but God. The life, action and health of your body is God. Your acceptance of the Allness and Oneness of God, reveals your wholeness, harmony and perfection right here and now. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > You > > are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- > > cussion in such a way that the other person > > has to agree to something that he doesn't > > believe in order to participate in the dis- > > cussion. > > > > It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe > > what you believe and let others believe what they > > believe? Why do you want to force them to believe > > something else, even if just theoretically? > > Why are you so protective of your own belief > system that you can't let go of it even just for > the sake of a discussion? Why are you so aggressive about imposing your belief system on others that you demand that they agree to yours -- at least theoretically -- before *having* the discussion? It seems to me that the only reason you'd want to do that is because you want to "prove yourself right." I don't have any such need with my beliefs. I don't think Curtis does either. Why do you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This "hypothetical" technique of yours could > be summed up as: > > "Pretend that I'm right, and then we can talk. > If you don't pretend I'm right, we can't." Wow, you obviously find hypothetical discussions tremendously threatening if that's the only way you can sum them up. > Get it, and its similarity to "Have you stopped > beating your wife?" :-) Not even remotely similar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > > > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > > > > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > > > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > > > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > > > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > > > them is any "higher" than another. > > > > Here's what I said to start with: > > > > "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > > of argument, that there was a state in which > > one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the > > material." > > > > That's what I was referring to when I said > > "assuming that such a state exists." > > > > So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are > > unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for > > the sake of argument, that there is such a > > state. > > > > And if you can't, then you really don't have > > any basis for complaint, because you're *also* > > insisting that there is only "one reality"--a > > reality in which everyone has a different > > spiritual reality. > > > > In other words, you've fallen into yet > > another infinite regress. > > You clearly did not read my followup > to my own post. Well, I read it after I wrote the post you're replying to, but it didn't change anything. And of course you've completely ignored the point I was making about your continuing problems with infinite regress. > To require someone to "hypothetically > suppose" something is to claim -- for > the duration of the argument -- that > it's true. And to force the other person > to "agree" to its "truth" -- again for > the duration of the argument. > > Isn't it so much easier to say, "I believe > that there is one reality" and not to try > to force the other person to pretend it's > true, just so you can have a discussion/ > argument? You're not being "forced" to have an argument. If you don't want to discuss the implications of a hypothetical, fine. Are you really unable to tolerate somebody else having that discussion? > I have NO PROBLEM with you believing that > there is "one reality." But I can't pretend > to believe that, just because you want me > to. That's asking me to say something I don't > believe is true. I have no problem assuming as a hypothetical that there are many different realities for the sake of a discussion, even though I don't believe it. I'm not sure why it should be such a problem for you. Seems to me it indicates a rather striking lack of mental flexibility. > Remember how recently you were trying to teach > Shemp what "Have you stopped beating your wife" > means? THAT is what you are doing here. Um, no, totally different. You > are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- > cussion in such a way that the other person > has to agree to something that he doesn't > believe in order to participate in the dis- > cussion. No, go back and read it again. You've totally misconstrued the context. > It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe > what you believe and let others believe what they > believe? Why do you want to force them to believe > something else, even if just theoretically? Why are you so protective of your own belief system that you can't let go of it even just for the sake of a discussion?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Political
Rick Archer wrote: > ...Webster Tarpley. > The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side. False. Source: Rumors of War: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/rumors.asp Tarpley on Hannity and Colmes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD21nP_P2yg The book suggests that no plane crashed into the Pentagon and none in Pennsylvania on 9/11, and that the alleged mobile phone calls on United Airlines Flight 93 were not real. The CIA and September 11: http://tinyurl.com/2mpvm5 An urban legend or urban myth is similar to a modern folklore consisting of stories thought to be factual by those circulating them. Urban legend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > > > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > > > > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > > > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > > > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > > > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > > > them is any "higher" than another. > > > > Here's what I said to start with: > > > > "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > > of argument, that there was a state in which > > one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the > > material." > > > > That's what I was referring to when I said > > "assuming that such a state exists." > > > > So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are > > unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for > > the sake of argument, that there is such a > > state. > > > > And if you can't, then you really don't have > > any basis for complaint, because you're *also* > > insisting that there is only "one reality"--a > > reality in which everyone has a different > > spiritual reality. > > > > In other words, you've fallen into yet > > another infinite regress. > > You clearly did not read my followup > to my own post. > > To require someone to "hypothetically > suppose" something is to claim -- for > the duration of the argument -- that > it's true. And to force the other person > to "agree" to its "truth" -- again for > the duration of the argument. > > Isn't it so much easier to say, "I believe > that there is one reality" and not to try > to force the other person to pretend it's > true, just so you can have a discussion/ > argument? > > I have NO PROBLEM with you believing that > there is "one reality." But I can't pretend > to believe that, just because you want me > to. That's asking me to say something I don't > believe is true. > > Remember how recently you were trying to teach > Shemp what "Have you stopped beating your wife" > means? THAT is what you are doing here. You > are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- > cussion in such a way that the other person > has to agree to something that he doesn't > believe in order to participate in the dis- > cussion. > > It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe > what you believe and let others believe what they > believe? Why do you want to force them to believe > something else, even if just theoretically? This "hypothetical" technique of yours could be summed up as: "Pretend that I'm right, and then we can talk. If you don't pretend I'm right, we can't." Get it, and its similarity to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" :-)
[FairfieldLife] Machida - Heart of Shotokan
> Lyota Machida...unlike any of the other UFC arrogant goons. > > Heart of Shotokan...humble and pureand excellent. > - Heart of Shotokan: This video is still working, the other one was removed. http://youtube.com/watch?v=-EQozpH4Jyg OffWorld > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-EQozpH4Jyg > > OffWorld >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > [snip] > > > Whatever, you want to believe about this is up to you, but on > > November 26th 2007, I stuck my neck out here on FFL, and made a > > prediction. > > > > I literally had never heard of "Lyoto Machida" or anything like him > > at that time, but if you read this prediction below that was posted > > in post number 156092 on FFL, on Nov. 27, 2007, you will see that I > > predicted it. > > [snip] > > Your success in this prediction only partially neutralizes your > psychotic episode of a month ago when you thought new.morning had > impugned that you beat your wife and you were going to sue everyone. > > Remember that, nutjob? Lol, that from a guy that spends all his waking hours harrassing people on the internet. Get a life Shempy. > > If you want to totally neutralize it you will have to not only > predict the future but levitate over Lake Champlain and conjur up the > legendary lake monster "Champy".>> Been there, done that. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > > them is any "higher" than another. > > Here's what I said to start with: > > "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > of argument, that there was a state in which > one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the > material." > > That's what I was referring to when I said > "assuming that such a state exists." > > So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are > unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for > the sake of argument, that there is such a > state. > > And if you can't, then you really don't have > any basis for complaint, because you're *also* > insisting that there is only "one reality"--a > reality in which everyone has a different > spiritual reality. > > In other words, you've fallen into yet > another infinite regress. You clearly did not read my followup to my own post. To require someone to "hypothetically suppose" something is to claim -- for the duration of the argument -- that it's true. And to force the other person to "agree" to its "truth" -- again for the duration of the argument. Isn't it so much easier to say, "I believe that there is one reality" and not to try to force the other person to pretend it's true, just so you can have a discussion/ argument? I have NO PROBLEM with you believing that there is "one reality." But I can't pretend to believe that, just because you want me to. That's asking me to say something I don't believe is true. Remember how recently you were trying to teach Shemp what "Have you stopped beating your wife" means? THAT is what you are doing here. You are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- cussion in such a way that the other person has to agree to something that he doesn't believe in order to participate in the dis- cussion. It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe what you believe and let others believe what they believe? Why do you want to force them to believe something else, even if just theoretically?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I enjoy hearing about people's experiences and what they have > concluded about them. But summing up other people's experience as > some kind of delusion is unnecessary. If you take out his > speculations about what others are experiencing, you end up with > very little that is more than unsupported assertion. Even if you leave them *in*, it's still a bunch of unsupported assertions. Any assertion about enlightenment is unsupportable by definition, because enlightenment is *subjective*. > The confidence in "self evident" knowledge which needs no further > epistemological support is not something I share with some of the > yoga traditions, including Yogananda. What's the alternative? What kind of "epistemological support" do you imagine there could be? So I view claims of ultimate > knowledge or reality with skepticism. The guys strapping > on the bombs are absolutely sure too, as we have often > discussed. Being absolutely sure about one's view is not > a virtue in my book. Are you absolutely sure of that? I suspect you'll say no, you're not absolutely sure. So why can't you give Yogananda the benefit of the doubt? > Now that I think of it, even MMY does a better job of not > rubbing in the "you are ignorant, I am not" subtext of a > discussion of higher states. I rarely feel like I am being > put down as he describes his view of human potential. He doesn't put it in personal terms, but he certainly does make the contrast. What I'm getting at is that it's impossible to talk about higher states *without* drawing contrasts, even if they're only implicit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Following up on my own post because this is > one of my favorite subjects... > > And interestingly enough, one can believe the > opposite -- that there IS a "highest" reality -- > and not be the least bit offensive about the > way in which they express that belief. Consider > the following two sentences: > > 1. "I believe that there is an Ultimate Reality, > a state which is higher than all the rest." > > 2. "There is an Ultimate Reality, a state which > is higher than all the rest." > > The first sentence makes it clear that the speaker > honestly believes this, but there is nothing at all > offensive or elitist or condescending in the state- > ment; it is merely an expression of his belief. > > The second sentence is a claim to "know the truth" > and to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with *what* > the speaker considers the "highest state" is somehow > mistaken. > > Two little words. That's the only difference between > the two statements, but they make all the difference > in the world. > OTOH, "Belief means not wanting to know what is true." Friedrich Nietzsche
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The confidence in "self evident" knowledge which needs no further > epistemological support is not something I share with some of the yoga > traditions, including Yogananda. So I view claims of ultimate > knowledge or reality with skepticism. The guys strapping on the bombs > are absolutely sure too, as we have often discussed. Being absolutely > sure about one's view is not a virtue in my book. The point here is that, yes; but, even if they are 'sure' as you put it, they still have to account for the fact, if they aren't!! It's true we never really know for sure until we have become established in the home of all the laws of nature, then our activity would be spontaneously in harmony with the laws of nature, but I digress. Till then we do our best do we not? And the best we can do, short of realization, is scripture, conscience and intuition. That's it! Unless you've got a better benchmark, I'd like to hear it. P.S. It doesn't matter WHO says it, what matters is does it ring true! God gave us intuitive knowledge, let's use it. The best foundation for what is right or wrong will always be Self-Realization.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > them is any "higher" than another. Here's what I said to start with: "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that there was a state in which one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material." That's what I was referring to when I said "assuming that such a state exists." So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for the sake of argument, that there is such a state. And if you can't, then you really don't have any basis for complaint, because you're *also* insisting that there is only "one reality"--a reality in which everyone has a different spiritual reality. In other words, you've fallen into yet another infinite regress.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
Following up on my own post because this is one of my favorite subjects... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... there is a way that someone could > attempt to put their realization into words > that is NOT offensive in the least. It's simple, > and it's the VERY thing that is missing in most > such attempted descriptions here on FFL. > > Using your terminology, it's the difference > between "a Spiritual Reality" and "Just Another > Spiritual Reality." The offensive part is the > belief that there is only ONE "reality" or > "ultimate reality." > > What would be *unoffensive* would be the inclu- > sion of language in one's description that said, > "This is just MY experience. It was a really > neat experience, and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm > not saying that it's "THE" experience, or the > "ULTIMATE" experience, only that it was my exper- > ience. I don't know what the experience means, or > even IF it means anything; I'm just reporting on > what I experienced. I also don't know whether it's > "higher" or "lower" or "better" or "worse" than > anyone else's experience; It was just my experience. > > What is to argue about with such a presentation? > > . . . > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > them is any "higher" than another. And interestingly enough, one can believe the opposite -- that there IS a "highest" reality -- and not be the least bit offensive about the way in which they express that belief. Consider the following two sentences: 1. "I believe that there is an Ultimate Reality, a state which is higher than all the rest." 2. "There is an Ultimate Reality, a state which is higher than all the rest." The first sentence makes it clear that the speaker honestly believes this, but there is nothing at all offensive or elitist or condescending in the state- ment; it is merely an expression of his belief. The second sentence is a claim to "know the truth" and to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with *what* the speaker considers the "highest state" is somehow mistaken. Two little words. That's the only difference between the two statements, but they make all the difference in the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
> > > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > > > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > > > one's progress toward enlightenment. > > > > And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" > > model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" > > "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another > > equally accurate model and description of the process -- > > that everyone is always already enlightened and that the > > *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization > > of what has always already been going on -- then there > > is no "progress" possible. > > Except progress toward realization of what has > always already been going on. > > See, the reason it's a throwaway neo-Advaita > one-liner is that the distinction is still there, > only now it's called "not realizing vs. realizing > what has always already been going on" instead of > "unenlightened vs. enlightened." > > In other words: > > unenlightened = not realizing what has always > already been going on > > enlightened = realizing what has always > already been going on > > It's the same distinction. So all I have to do > is change my wording: > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > one's progress toward realizing what has always > already been going on. > > The only difference is that my original wording > uses fewer words; the meaning is identical. > and because 'realizing' is the essential criteria and because 'not realizing' is devoid of meaning and "what has always already been going on" is not an object Libations: sometimes one has to stumble, to stumble onto something.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Calling other people deluded in the midst of spiritual claptrap is > > just monkey oneupmanship dressed up as virtue. I am not fooled by > > this wolf in sheep's clothing, the personal nastiness it tries to > > hide. Feeling a bit "superior" today are we? > > Curtis, just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > of argument, that there was a state in which one > perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material. > > Should a person who had achieved this state refrain > from describing it? Or if not, how could it be > described other than in terms of a contrast with > the state lacking such perception? > > Assuming such a state exists, what kind of > description could someone in the state provide > that wouldn't offend you? I'm not Curtis, but I'll answer just for fun, because I've thought about this a lot. First, any attempted "description" of the exper- ience you postulated would be foolish, because if it's 'beyond the material' then it's non-relative and can't be described in relative language. But beyond that obvious and fairly elementary nitpick, there is a way that someone could attempt to put their realization into words that is NOT offensive in the least. It's simple, and it's the VERY thing that is missing in most such attempted descriptions here on FFL. Using your terminology, it's the difference between "a Spiritual Reality" and "Just Another Spiritual Reality." The offensive part is the belief that there is only ONE "reality" or "ultimate reality." What would be *unoffensive* would be the inclu- sion of language in one's description that said, "This is just MY experience. It was a really neat experience, and I enjoyed it a lot. I'm not saying that it's "THE" experience, or the "ULTIMATE" experience, only that it was my exper- ience. I don't know what the experience means, or even IF it means anything; I'm just reporting on what I experienced. I also don't know whether it's "higher" or "lower" or "better" or "worse" than anyone else's experience; It was just my experience. What is to argue about with such a presentation? There is no claim of superiority there, no pos- ition of elitism, no declaration that the exper- ience made the person reporting it "better" or "more highly evolved" or "more special" in ANY way than the people to whom it is being reported to. Those things enter into the picture only when someone starts to make claims that *their* experience is the "ultimate" experience, or that it reflects some eternal spiritual truth or "reality." You don't need to do that to share a neat experience. But a lot of people seem to believe that you do. You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of them is any "higher" than another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
> Curtis, just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > of argument, that there was a state in which one > perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material. > > Should a person who had achieved this state refrain > from describing it? Or if not, how could it be > described other than in terms of a contrast with > the state lacking such perception? > > Assuming such a state exists, what kind of > description could someone in the state provide > that wouldn't offend you? > I think plenty of people do. Even your own descriptions of your experiences with the growth of your meditation practice qualifies. You can describe what you experience and how you think about it without the assumptive judgment that others are on a lower level. How could anyone know such a thing about another person? Maybe with this insight he is just catching up to the rest of us but we take it for granted. His assumption of superiority of insight seems naive to me, childish. I enjoy hearing about people's experiences and what they have concluded about them. But summing up other people's experience as some kind of delusion is unnecessary. If you take out his speculations about what others are experiencing, you end up with very little that is more than unsupported assertion. Having read Yoganandas' books I know what experiences his confidence is based on. When matched with his experiences you can decide for yourself if you find him credible. The confidence in "self evident" knowledge which needs no further epistemological support is not something I share with some of the yoga traditions, including Yogananda. So I view claims of ultimate knowledge or reality with skepticism. The guys strapping on the bombs are absolutely sure too, as we have often discussed. Being absolutely sure about one's view is not a virtue in my book. Now that I think of it, even MMY does a better job of not rubbing in the "you are ignorant, I am not" subtext of a discussion of higher states. I rarely feel like I am being put down as he describes his view of human potential. But having seen this particular button of mine get pushed quote often, I'm sure you recognize it as a theme for me. I don't believe that any human has all of life figured out and value an approach of humility concerning what we "know". I resonate with people who are able to share their experiences and perspectives without assuming that they are not talking with an equal. Many people here are able to connect that way here, with mutual respect. It doesn't mean that some people can't have a "better" insight on any specific point, that is often the case. But we are all are students of life in my book, no masters. I may mean that I have a inability to recognize if there is such a human who knows it all. I'm willing to chance it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Calling other people deluded in the midst of spiritual claptrap is > > just monkey oneupmanship dressed up as virtue. I am not fooled by > > this wolf in sheep's clothing, the personal nastiness it tries to > > hide. Feeling a bit "superior" today are we? > > Curtis, just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > of argument, that there was a state in which one > perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material. > > Should a person who had achieved this state refrain > from describing it? Or if not, how could it be > described other than in terms of a contrast with > the state lacking such perception? > > Assuming such a state exists, what kind of > description could someone in the state provide > that wouldn't offend you? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and > > > paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . > > > > I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts forums with > > descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like that", and when the > > inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends who have seen > > this cycle many times before. > > Bingo! > > Did you ever see the Richard Gere film "Mr. Jones?" > It's a real education. When he's up, his manic enthusiasm > almost convinces people who don't know him that he's some > kind of visionary prophet. But when they get *to* know > him, and have sat through a few of the up-and-down manic- > depressive cycles, they've learned not to trust *any* > of them. It's just brain chemicals talking, not a prophet. I actually think it's one of Gere's best performances and he got very little recognition for it (and the movie was NOT a commerical success). Another role that really brings home the contrasts and swings of the manic-depressive cycle is, of course, Kevin Kline's role as Nathan Landau in "Sophie's choice". > > I don't even bother to read Ben's stuff any more, > because I nailed him as a manic-depressive-in-search- > of-an-audience right away, before he even talked about > his own psychological history. While I may feel for the > guy, I don't have to subject myself to his mood swings. > > > After falsely running a "humility routine" and promising to learn > > from posters here, Ben has shown his true colors as a "talker", not > > a listener. (although he did drop the "Much Love" signature) > > "Talker not a listener." Have you noticed how accurately > that describes...uh...other talkers on this forum who > have taken some flack for never listening, especially > to the things they themselves are saying? Think Jim and > Rory. > > > When I hear someone like this confidently express his "knowledge" of > > God, it makes me realize how fanciful some minds are. Full of > > grandiose notions of "God's will", along with a total lack of > > ability to just be human and communicate on an equal level with > > other humans. > > That's it exactly. > > The entire concept of adding phrases to their rants like > "in my opinion," or "as I see it," or "I'm just another > bozo trying to figure things out the way you are, but > here's how it looks to me" is lost on them. They've just > seemingly *got* to present everything they say as if it's > the word of God, and as if they're blessing us by sharing > their "Truths" with those of us unlucky enough not to hear > God chattering away in our heads the way He seems to be > in theirs. > > > Having spent 15 of my first 31 years as a version of Ben, I am not > > pointing my finger with a lack of awareness of my own guilty > > familiarity withe this routine. As with the Tom Cruise video, what > > bothers me most is how much of my past (hopefully!) self I see in > > it. > > Exactly. > > > So thanks to Ben for reminding me to be less of "teacher" and be > > more of a "student" of life. > > And just a friendly reminder from me that at this point > Ben's time would *really* be better spent as a student > than as a teacher. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Judy the Clintonista
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > > > wrote: > > > > > Well, then, since they don't say what I claim they say and, > > > > apparently, they say what YOU claim, it shouldn't be too > > > > difficult for you to list the reasons why the Clintons are > > > > centrist Democrats. > > > > > > > > I've listed my evidence. Now see if you can put all that > > > > triangulating to good use and list your evidence, too. > > > > > > Jesus, Shemp. It's the *same evidence*. Any > > > recital of Clinton's policies is going to list > > > the same ones. What they add up to is *centrism*-- > > > neither all conservative nor all liberal, but a > > > mixture, so they're in the, you know, center. > > > > > > Nobody's saying he didn't take some relatively > > > conservative positions, but he also took some > > > relatively liberal positions. > > > > > > Have you never heard of the DLC? > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council > > > > > > Notice who was the first chair of the DLC. > > > > Just as I thought. She couldn't come up with anything. > > Did you read the Wikipedia article, Shemp? > > I think you have some fantasy that the "evidence" > you're demanding I provide would have to be a whole > slew of liberal things Clinton did in secret, which > of course doesn't exist. > > What I'm trying to point out to you is that what > he actually did--including all the things mentioned > in the articles you cited--*makes him a centrist > Democrat*, not a conservative. But in order to > grasp that fact, you need to understand *what a > centrist Democrat is*. > > That's why I referred you to the Wikipedia article > on the DLC, which is *the* centrist organization > for Democrats; it *defines* Democratic centrism. > > This is how the article begins: > > "The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation > [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should > shift away from traditionally populist positions [i.e., shift > away from the left toward the center--JS]. The DLC hails > President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way > politicians and as a DLC success story" > > Next you should read another Wikipedia aritcle, > this one on "third way" politics (see last sentence > above). It begins: > > The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political > philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and > interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both > socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, > but chiefly stresses technological development, education, > and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and > governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been > described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its > proponents.[2]... > > A "Third Way" approach has been adopted by some social > democrats and social liberals in many Western liberal > democracies.[4] The most recent prominent examples being the > Clinton Administration in the United States, the Liberal Party > government of Canada under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the > Labour Party governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair > and Gordon Brown, and the Australian Labor Party under Kevin > Rudd. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism) > > And finally, here's a definition of "third way" > Democratic centrism from Matt Stoller of the > very influential blog MyDD: > > What makes us moderates is the belief that while ideological > movements have had some enormously positive and important impacts > on America, we believe that there is also a critical role for > what Arthur Schlesinger famously described as "the vital center" > - a place that often seeks alternatives to more rigid ideological > viewpoints and is grounded in a pragmatic spirit of problem- > solving. Bill Clinton, one our most successful presidents, proved > that to be true. And so did history's giants - from the Founders > to Lincoln to FDR, America has moved forward by the combined > efforts of passionate and boundary-stretching outside agitators > and more practical inside advocates. And some of our nation's most > significant policy gains have been made when our leaders have come > together to find principled common ground. > > http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/7/125621/6667 > > You would do well to read the entire post. > > I read your "evidence." If you're not going to > read mine, STFU. > I'm familiar with the push in the past decade or so on the part of some Democrats to go towards "the center", as you say, in order to procure popular support. But what is presented in the two links you provide, Judy, is not evidence; it's opinion. And that's why I find that you don't often
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Calling other people deluded in the midst of spiritual claptrap is > just monkey oneupmanship dressed up as virtue. I am not fooled by > this wolf in sheep's clothing, the personal nastiness it tries to > hide. Feeling a bit "superior" today are we? Curtis, just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that there was a state in which one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the material. Should a person who had achieved this state refrain from describing it? Or if not, how could it be described other than in terms of a contrast with the state lacking such perception? Assuming such a state exists, what kind of description could someone in the state provide that wouldn't offend you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > > > > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > > > > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > > > > happened to me! > > > > > > This (profound witnessing after having a drink > > > or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* > > > the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, > > > an integral part of many of the stories about > > > enlightened teachers there. > > > > Yeah, except what we're talking about is how > > alcohol affects folks who *aren't* yet enlightened. > > Everyone is always already enlightened. Some > don't realize it yet, that's all. > > That's not just a throwaway neoAdvaitan oneliner; Sure it is. > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > > one's progress toward enlightenment. > > And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" > model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" > "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another > equally accurate model and description of the process -- > that everyone is always already enlightened and that the > *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization > of what has always already been going on -- then there > is no "progress" possible. Except progress toward realization of what has always already been going on. See, the reason it's a throwaway neo-Advaita one-liner is that the distinction is still there, only now it's called "not realizing vs. realizing what has always already been going on" instead of "unenlightened vs. enlightened." In other words: unenlightened = not realizing what has always already been going on enlightened = realizing what has always already been going on It's the same distinction. So all I have to do is change my wording: What we're debating here is whether psychoactive substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with one's progress toward realizing what has always already been going on. The only difference is that my original wording uses fewer words; the meaning is identical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Curtis-I read this recently and funnily enough your name popped into > > my head: > > That doesn't surprise me. You seem addicted to fancy ways to phrase > personal putdowns. Yognanda is the king of the passive aggressive > insult couched in "spiritual" sounding language. I'm not fooled by his > routine and not am impressed with his self proclaimed "knowledge" that > he pitched to the Hollywood elite when he was alive. Narcissistic > actors love to be told how "special" they are and how much better they > are than the "common" man, and will give large amounts of money to > keep hearing it. But lets hear from the first yogi to the stars himself: > > > > > I quote, "The influence of the force of avidya (the individuality of > > the ego) is such that no matter how irksome the illusion, deluded > man> is loath to part with it...The confirmed materialist, captive in > his> own realm of 'reality', is ignorant in, and of, his deluded state > and > therefore has no wish, nor will, to exchange it for the sole > Reality,> Spirit. > > By Spirit he means Allah right? The "No God but God" idea? Or is it > Poseidon he refers to? Claims of speaking for the "sole Reality" are a > dime a dozen. > > Calling other people deluded in the midst of spiritual claptrap is > just monkey oneupmanship dressed up as virtue. I am not fooled by > this wolf in sheep's clothing, the personal nastiness it tries to > hide. Feeling a bit "superior" today are we? > > > > > He perceives the temporal world as reality, eternal > substance-(insofar> as he is able to grasp the concept of eternity). > > Little bitchy dig there cowboy? Slipping in a little putdowns with > yer spirituality are ya? Does it make ya feel special? Very nice. > > He imagines the > > grossness of sensory experience to be the pure essence of feeling > and> perception. > > Got it, you see what is real, I don't. I am caught in the senses and > you aren't. When I describe love or other internal feeling of value > you reduce them to sensory enjoyment. I have no internal and profound > inner world, but you do. My pants are full of poopy and yours are > not. I got it. Childish schoolyard games in big boy grown up > language. So let me put in in the terms that it deserves: "stop > throwing sand, butthole, or I wont play with you anymore." > > He fabricates his OWN standards of morality and behavior > > and calls them good, irrespective of their inharmony with eternal > > Divine Law. > > You mean Sharia law right? The one true law of God? Or are you > referring to some set of laws that only you know about? Is it based > on scripture, which one? The ones that include the need for women to > jump on the burning funeral pire of their husbands? Or is is just > something you know yourself in your specialness? And you already know > about my codes of behavior magically right? > > As far as my morality an behavior go...tying to use spiritual > authority as a sneaky veil for a personal putdown is something I would > never do. Yogananda is being a pompous, judgmental, ass here. This > type of person is also a dime a dozen. I find them in every field. > > > > > And he thinks that his ego, his mortal sense of being, with its > > inflated self-importance as the almighty doer, is the image of his > > soul as created by God." > > So when I claim to be just a man, I have an inflated sense of self > importance, but when he claims to have a direct experience of "God", > this is humble? It is exactly the opposite. > > Swami Yogananda > > > > The next time he wants to preach to me about morality, he might want > to at least rise above the lowest bar of hypocrisy and lose the > putdowns, communicating with mutual respect. Using spirituality as a > way to assert one's superiority is childish nonsense. > > > Oh yeah, I forgot he's dead, so this message is for you Billy. I'm happy you read it Curtis, because it applies to us all, not just you. Being self-critical can be a good exercise and lead to spiritual growth, which is all I would wish for you. BTW, some day you may have poopy in your pants, then maybe you'll see things differently...Jaai Guuuru Dv! :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
> Curtis-I read this recently and funnily enough your name popped into > my head: That doesn't surprise me. You seem addicted to fancy ways to phrase personal putdowns. Yognanda is the king of the passive aggressive insult couched in "spiritual" sounding language. I'm not fooled by his routine and not am impressed with his self proclaimed "knowledge" that he pitched to the Hollywood elite when he was alive. Narcissistic actors love to be told how "special" they are and how much better they are than the "common" man, and will give large amounts of money to keep hearing it. But lets hear from the first yogi to the stars himself: > > I quote, "The influence of the force of avidya (the individuality of > the ego) is such that no matter how irksome the illusion, deluded man> is loath to part with it...The confirmed materialist, captive in his> own realm of 'reality', is ignorant in, and of, his deluded state and > therefore has no wish, nor will, to exchange it for the sole Reality,> Spirit. By Spirit he means Allah right? The "No God but God" idea? Or is it Poseidon he refers to? Claims of speaking for the "sole Reality" are a dime a dozen. Calling other people deluded in the midst of spiritual claptrap is just monkey oneupmanship dressed up as virtue. I am not fooled by this wolf in sheep's clothing, the personal nastiness it tries to hide. Feeling a bit "superior" today are we? > > He perceives the temporal world as reality, eternal substance-(insofar> as he is able to grasp the concept of eternity). Little bitchy dig there cowboy? Slipping in a little putdowns with yer spirituality are ya? Does it make ya feel special? Very nice. He imagines the > grossness of sensory experience to be the pure essence of feeling and> perception. Got it, you see what is real, I don't. I am caught in the senses and you aren't. When I describe love or other internal feeling of value you reduce them to sensory enjoyment. I have no internal and profound inner world, but you do. My pants are full of poopy and yours are not. I got it. Childish schoolyard games in big boy grown up language. So let me put in in the terms that it deserves: "stop throwing sand, butthole, or I wont play with you anymore." He fabricates his OWN standards of morality and behavior > and calls them good, irrespective of their inharmony with eternal > Divine Law. You mean Sharia law right? The one true law of God? Or are you referring to some set of laws that only you know about? Is it based on scripture, which one? The ones that include the need for women to jump on the burning funeral pire of their husbands? Or is is just something you know yourself in your specialness? And you already know about my codes of behavior magically right? As far as my morality an behavior go...tying to use spiritual authority as a sneaky veil for a personal putdown is something I would never do. Yogananda is being a pompous, judgmental, ass here. This type of person is also a dime a dozen. I find them in every field. > > And he thinks that his ego, his mortal sense of being, with its > inflated self-importance as the almighty doer, is the image of his > soul as created by God." So when I claim to be just a man, I have an inflated sense of self importance, but when he claims to have a direct experience of "God", this is humble? It is exactly the opposite. Swami Yogananda > The next time he wants to preach to me about morality, he might want to at least rise above the lowest bar of hypocrisy and lose the putdowns, communicating with mutual respect. Using spirituality as a way to assert one's superiority is childish nonsense. Oh yeah, I forgot he's dead, so this message is for you Billy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Veterans of Life
Judy, my brother has hours of interviews with them and a book in progress for many years now. Whether it ever comes together or not as a published piece, it's chocked full of amazing stories and unlikely coincidences. One memory I have was the visit of an old guy by the name of John de Rosen to our home sometime in the early 60s. He was a Polish mosaic artist and he was in Saint Louis at the time to work on a large mural he was commissioned to do for the Saint Louis Cathedral, a gorgeous (and massive) Romanesque church that was in construction for most of the 20th Century. He also did the huge mosaic of the Christ above the altar in the National Cathedral in D.C. and stuff at the Pope's Castle Gandolfo. Anyway, there had been a story about his Saint Louis project in the papers at the time and my mother read about it and wrote to him because she remembered him from times he had come to her father's Castle Lesko where he had designed the stained glass work for the chapel. He came and visited for the day and brought with him a small painting as a gift for my mother; it was one of the original designs he had prepared for her father before the final approval, construction and installation of the windows. He wrote a sweet dedication to her at the bottom and it's been hanging in the foyer ever since. Very cool stuff, for sure. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > wrote: > > > > Thanks, Doug, it's been lucky for me and my brother and sister > > that our folks have shared their memories as thoroughly as they > > have, and that they're still available to resource despite their > > age. > > Have you considered getting your parents to relate > their experiences in detail into a tape recorder, > to do an "oral history" project with them? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > > > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > > > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > > > happened to me! > > > > This (profound witnessing after having a drink > > or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* > > the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, > > an integral part of many of the stories about > > enlightened teachers there. > > Yeah, except what we're talking about is how > alcohol affects folks who *aren't* yet enlightened. Everyone is always already enlightened. Some don't realize it yet, that's all. That's not just a throwaway neoAdvaitan oneliner; it's a very accurate way of describing the supposed "difference" between the enlightened and those who don't realize yet that they are enlightened. In other words, enlightenment *may* have nothing whatsoever to do with any physiological differences. It may be simply a matter of recognition. If it is, then alcohol or any other psychotropic substance may affect the "enlightened" *exactly* the same as it affects the so-called "unenlightened" because there has never been a point at which anyone was ever "unenlightened." I'm riffing on alternative language here Jude, trying to get you to see that your choice of language creates a possibly artificial distinction between enlightened and non-enlightened, and is narrowing your field of possibilities, as opposed to expanding it. > > > > Very different with pot, again in my experience > > > (many years ago). > > > > But there again, look into it and you will find > > whole spiritual traditions in India that smoke > > hashish as a sacrament, and in *huge* quantities. > > Different strokes for different folks. > > Or maybe different qualities of THC... > > In any case, the practice of these traditions > would seem to confirm what *I* said, that pot > *does* affect one's meditation. (Unless these > groups don't meditate, of course.) > > What we're debating here is whether psychoactive > substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with > one's progress toward enlightenment. And again, you are assuming the "unenlightened" model, which believes that "progress" *has* to be "made" "towards" enlightenment. If you shift to another equally accurate model and description of the process -- that everyone is always already enlightened and that the *only* thing that marks "enlightenment" is a realization of what has always already been going on -- then there is no "progress" possible. > So far, > nothing that anyone has said constitutes actual > evidence one way or the other. I would extend that statement to a description of the entirety of human history: "So far, nothing that anyone has said about *anything* constitutes actual evidence one way or another." :-)
[FairfieldLife] Andrew Sullivan on TM and MMY
Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi Steps Down 30 Jan 2008 12:09 pm Or rather shifts imperceptibly in his seat, and giggles a little. Bliss is bliss. Retirement must feel even better. (And, yes, I've been trained in TM and recommend it.) He links to the Reuters article: http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-31636820080128
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and > > paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . > > I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts forums with > descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like that", and when the > inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends who have seen > this cycle many times before. Bingo! Did you ever see the Richard Gere film "Mr. Jones?" It's a real education. When he's up, his manic enthusiasm almost convinces people who don't know him that he's some kind of visionary prophet. But when they get *to* know him, and have sat through a few of the up-and-down manic- depressive cycles, they've learned not to trust *any* of them. It's just brain chemicals talking, not a prophet. I don't even bother to read Ben's stuff any more, because I nailed him as a manic-depressive-in-search- of-an-audience right away, before he even talked about his own psychological history. While I may feel for the guy, I don't have to subject myself to his mood swings. > After falsely running a "humility routine" and promising to learn > from posters here, Ben has shown his true colors as a "talker", not > a listener. (although he did drop the "Much Love" signature) "Talker not a listener." Have you noticed how accurately that describes...uh...other talkers on this forum who have taken some flack for never listening, especially to the things they themselves are saying? Think Jim and Rory. > When I hear someone like this confidently express his "knowledge" of > God, it makes me realize how fanciful some minds are. Full of > grandiose notions of "God's will", along with a total lack of > ability to just be human and communicate on an equal level with > other humans. That's it exactly. The entire concept of adding phrases to their rants like "in my opinion," or "as I see it," or "I'm just another bozo trying to figure things out the way you are, but here's how it looks to me" is lost on them. They've just seemingly *got* to present everything they say as if it's the word of God, and as if they're blessing us by sharing their "Truths" with those of us unlucky enough not to hear God chattering away in our heads the way He seems to be in theirs. > Having spent 15 of my first 31 years as a version of Ben, I am not > pointing my finger with a lack of awareness of my own guilty > familiarity withe this routine. As with the Tom Cruise video, what > bothers me most is how much of my past (hopefully!) self I see in > it. Exactly. > So thanks to Ben for reminding me to be less of "teacher" and be > more of a "student" of life. And just a friendly reminder from me that at this point Ben's time would *really* be better spent as a student than as a teacher.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be > > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) > > > Then how exactly do you masturbate? Internet porn? (If the answer > is > that you do not please include an address where I can send the >>flowers > and condolences) Curtis-I read this recently and funnily enough your name popped into my head: I quote, "The influence of the force of avidya (the individuality of the ego) is such that no matter how irksome the illusion, deluded man is loath to part with it...The confirmed materialist, captive in his own realm of 'reality', is ignorant in, and of, his deluded state and therefore has no wish, nor will, to exchange it for the sole Reality, Spirit. He perceives the temporal world as reality, eternal substance-(insofar as he is able to grasp the concept of eternity). He imagines the grossness of sensory experience to be the pure essence of feeling and perception. He fabricates his OWN standards of morality and behavior and calls them good, irrespective of their inharmony with eternal Divine Law. And he thinks that his ego, his mortal sense of being, with its inflated self-importance as the almighty doer, is the image of his soul as created by God." Swami Yogananda
[FairfieldLife] Re: Veterans of Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Doug, it's been lucky for me and my brother and sister > that our folks have shared their memories as thoroughly as they > have, and that they're still available to resource despite their > age. Have you considered getting your parents to relate their experiences in detail into a tape recorder, to do an "oral history" project with them?
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > > happened to me! > > This (profound witnessing after having a drink > or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* > the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, > an integral part of many of the stories about > enlightened teachers there. Yeah, except what we're talking about is how alcohol affects folks who *aren't* yet enlightened. > > Very different with pot, again in my experience > > (many years ago). > > But there again, look into it and you will find > whole spiritual traditions in India that smoke > hashish as a sacrament, and in *huge* quantities. > Different strokes for different folks. Or maybe different qualities of THC... In any case, the practice of these traditions would seem to confirm what *I* said, that pot *does* affect one's meditation. (Unless these groups don't meditate, of course.) What we're debating here is whether psychoactive substances such as alcohol and pot interfere with one's progress toward enlightenment. So far, nothing that anyone has said constitutes actual evidence one way or the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Judy the Clintonista
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > Well, then, since they don't say what I claim they say and, > > > apparently, they say what YOU claim, it shouldn't be too > > > difficult for you to list the reasons why the Clintons are > > > centrist Democrats. > > > > > > I've listed my evidence. Now see if you can put all that > > > triangulating to good use and list your evidence, too. > > > > Jesus, Shemp. It's the *same evidence*. Any > > recital of Clinton's policies is going to list > > the same ones. What they add up to is *centrism*-- > > neither all conservative nor all liberal, but a > > mixture, so they're in the, you know, center. > > > > Nobody's saying he didn't take some relatively > > conservative positions, but he also took some > > relatively liberal positions. > > > > Have you never heard of the DLC? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council > > > > Notice who was the first chair of the DLC. > > Just as I thought. She couldn't come up with anything. Did you read the Wikipedia article, Shemp? I think you have some fantasy that the "evidence" you're demanding I provide would have to be a whole slew of liberal things Clinton did in secret, which of course doesn't exist. What I'm trying to point out to you is that what he actually did--including all the things mentioned in the articles you cited--*makes him a centrist Democrat*, not a conservative. But in order to grasp that fact, you need to understand *what a centrist Democrat is*. That's why I referred you to the Wikipedia article on the DLC, which is *the* centrist organization for Democrats; it *defines* Democratic centrism. This is how the article begins: "The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation [1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions [i.e., shift away from the left toward the center--JS]. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story" Next you should read another Wikipedia aritcle, this one on "third way" politics (see last sentence above). It begins: The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its proponents.[2]... A "Third Way" approach has been adopted by some social democrats and social liberals in many Western liberal democracies.[4] The most recent prominent examples being the Clinton Administration in the United States, the Liberal Party government of Canada under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the Labour Party governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism) And finally, here's a definition of "third way" Democratic centrism from Matt Stoller of the very influential blog MyDD: What makes us moderates is the belief that while ideological movements have had some enormously positive and important impacts on America, we believe that there is also a critical role for what Arthur Schlesinger famously described as "the vital center" - a place that often seeks alternatives to more rigid ideological viewpoints and is grounded in a pragmatic spirit of problem- solving. Bill Clinton, one our most successful presidents, proved that to be true. And so did history's giants - from the Founders to Lincoln to FDR, America has moved forward by the combined efforts of passionate and boundary-stretching outside agitators and more practical inside advocates. And some of our nation's most significant policy gains have been made when our leaders have come together to find principled common ground. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/7/125621/6667 You would do well to read the entire post. I read your "evidence." If you're not going to read mine, STFU.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Masturbation (Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair)
I don't live with my girl, a situation that has both pros and cons. Both experiences have a place in my enjoyment of life. I dig both quick Vietnamese take out, as well as a more elaborate gourmet meal, they both have a place. But your piece is an inspirational message Edg. Perhaps it is the Triking that has kept you so vital. Keep it up...oh, I mean...keep on plugging...euw, that was worse... good for you! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Masturbate? > > Masturbate? > > Shirley, you jest. > > The notion crosses my mind now and then, but I know the price that'll > be paid for those few seconds of pleasure: that I will get an orgasm > that is "lite" and so much less pleasurable then when I orgasm with my > woman. If I make love with her "too soonish" after masturbating, say, > within 24 hours, there's a big chance my orgasm with her will be > lessened -- even though all the attendant activities of amore have > been duly observed -- even though my heart has been fully engaged by > the sweetness of unification. > > Yeah, it's possible to have a great orgasm masturbating and a > not-so-good orgasm while making love, but that's purdy rare. If you > can, er, pull that reversal off, regularly, man, write a book. > > There's a limited supply, ya know? YMMV, but I find that abstinence > makes the heat grow hotter. Maybe if you have, say, three squirts a > day production capacity, luckyfucky you -- you'll be feeling rich, but > time passes, Dude, time passes. > > At 63, I can see the diminishing returns of spending pennies -- what > can they buy compared to laying down some serious cash and having a > volcano's eruption instead of a mud burp in Yellowstone? Do you want > a tryst in Motel Six or a scarlet night at Fountaine Bleu? > > I make the best of my "last days," these days. Call it building > memories for my death bed. Quality moments get imprinted, ya know? > > When I have masturbated in recent years, my woman floods my mind > anyway, so why not have the real deal? > > Oh, I'll beat off again, I'm sure, er, Shirl, there'll be reasons, but > to me the lesson is always so clear that I've been but penny wise. > > 'Course, if'n yer grabbin' gold rings catch as catch can, maybe in the > voids of availability, in that dearth, winging it, er, wanging it > makes sense. > > Edg > This message is PG-13, eh? > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be > > > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) > > > > > > Then how exactly do you masturbate? Internet porn? (If the answer is > > that you do not please include an address where I can send the flowers > > and condolences) > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, listening right now, here's what I hear, "don't look back or > > > you'll turn to a pillar of salt." > > > > > > > > Thanks for listening, > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > Indeed, and the moral of the story is that once you determine to go > > > forward and become a new person (resolution), "don't look back"! > > > > > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be > > > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) and consequently fell > > > from her spiritual awareness to latent sex memories (Sodom) and > > > thereby lost her spiritual foundation and was, i.e.'turned to salt'! > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We ancients of the Akashic Brotherhood are please with > your progress, little one. How many times do I have to remind you that the whirlpool water at the Caligula Bath House for Manboys was cld that day? Will I never live down one moment of shrinkage? Namaste > > --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts > > forums with > > descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like > > that", and when the > > inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends > > who have seen > > this cycle many times before. > > > > After falsely running a "humility routine" and > > promising to learn from > > posters here, Ben has shown his true colors as a > > "talker", not a > > listener. (although he did drop the "Much Love" > > signature) > > > > When I hear someone like this confidently express > > his "knowledge" of > > God, it makes me realize how fanciful some minds > > are. Full of > > grandiose notions of "God's will", along with a > > total lack of ability > > to just be human and communicate on an equal level > > with other humans. > > Having spent 15 of my first 31 years as a version > > of Ben, I am not > > pointing my finger with a lack of awareness of my > > own guilty > > familiarity withe this routine. As with the Tom > > Cruise video, what > > bothers me most is how much of my past (hopefully!) > > self I see in it. > > So thanks to Ben for reminding me to be less of > > "teacher" and be more > > of a "student" of life. > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
We ancients of the Akashic Brotherhood are please with your progress, little one. Namaste --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts > forums with > descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like > that", and when the > inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends > who have seen > this cycle many times before. > > After falsely running a "humility routine" and > promising to learn from > posters here, Ben has shown his true colors as a > "talker", not a > listener. (although he did drop the "Much Love" > signature) > > When I hear someone like this confidently express > his "knowledge" of > God, it makes me realize how fanciful some minds > are. Full of > grandiose notions of "God's will", along with a > total lack of ability > to just be human and communicate on an equal level > with other humans. > Having spent 15 of my first 31 years as a version > of Ben, I am not > pointing my finger with a lack of awareness of my > own guilty > familiarity withe this routine. As with the Tom > Cruise video, what > bothers me most is how much of my past (hopefully!) > self I see in it. > So thanks to Ben for reminding me to be less of > "teacher" and be more > of a "student" of life. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:56 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and > paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts forums with descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like that", and when the inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends who have seen this cycle many times before. Is Ben not taking his lithium?
[FairfieldLife] Political
Here are some stimulating educational videos taken from YouTube of the historian Webster Tarpley. Tarpley is also a scholar involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. _ Webster Tarpley - 9/11 & The Neo-Con War Faction (in three parts): Part 1: HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnfLAYZbAIs"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m nfLAYZbAIs Part 2: HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vtOwe0825g&NR=1"http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=7vtOwe0825g&NR=1 Part 3: HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQ-1MwsIGw&feature=related"http://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=WAQ-1MwsIGw&feature=related _ Webster Tarpley - The Myth Of The 21st Century HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkrucwVue-E&feature=related"http://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=WkrucwVue-E&feature=related No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
> I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and > paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . I'm gunna guess the when the "manic" hits he blasts forums with descriptions of how Ben and God are "tight like that", and when the inevitable depression hits, he falls back on friends who have seen this cycle many times before. After falsely running a "humility routine" and promising to learn from posters here, Ben has shown his true colors as a "talker", not a listener. (although he did drop the "Much Love" signature) When I hear someone like this confidently express his "knowledge" of God, it makes me realize how fanciful some minds are. Full of grandiose notions of "God's will", along with a total lack of ability to just be human and communicate on an equal level with other humans. Having spent 15 of my first 31 years as a version of Ben, I am not pointing my finger with a lack of awareness of my own guilty familiarity withe this routine. As with the Tom Cruise video, what bothers me most is how much of my past (hopefully!) self I see in it. So thanks to Ben for reminding me to be less of "teacher" and be more of a "student" of life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben, > > Poet is more your style than, say, educator. So many of your words are > "so wide" that I feel less resonance. Your call to arms leaves me > asking, "What arms?" > > At the 1971 Humboldt course, a hippie got up to the mike and braced > Maharishi with the fact that (I think it was) Krishnamurti was > insisting that nothing -- NOTHING -- could be done to reach God, and > that "one must not have a futile intent." > > Maharishi said, "You notice this word "must." > > We all laughed. > > You call to us, Ben, but what did you use as your EXACT method to rise > to the subtle airs to which your kite has soared? > > I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and > paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . > > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti wrote: > > > > Many years ago I discovered that wholehearted surrender to "Thy will > be done" can result in a very deep awareness of God's allness. Why? > Because that's what God wills that His Allness be known. And once > it was known, my life became wonderful in many great ways. When > you're sure God is all there is, your experience becomes rich with > harmony, freedom, discovery, revelation, wonder, delight, love, > healing, miracles, beauty, all that stuff. > > > > But then I eventually came to rest on my laurels and fell back to > sleep. My deep awareness of God's allness shriveled into just an > idea, an idea that became diluted with other ideas that made me dream > illusions, until the illusions became dreadful enough to motivate me > to surrender once again. > > > > That's happened four times in 30 years. The last time it > happened I sank so deep into despair that my friends had to work hard > to get me out; nudging, wooing, inspiring, nuking, encouraging, > confronting till I finally could see what I needed to do. What I > needed to do was become humble enough to dump the baloney and return > once again to wholehearted desire that "Thy will be done." > > > > When I listen, God reveals His will to be always the same. What > God wills is awareness of His allness, not just as an idea, but as a > deep realization. It can only happen by listening, because only God > can reveal it. But I listened. And it happened. > > > > So, with a new deep awareness that God is all, it was once again > clear there's nothing to be concerned about, no reason to despair, and > that released the illusions that despair and concern held in place, > and allowed my life once again to reflect God's intent. > > > > Now if I get sloppy again, I'll fall back asleep. The only way > I'll be able to stay awake is to keep listening to God. That's the > only way awareness of God's allness will remain deep enough to allow > His will to be done. That's simple enough. So why didn't I keep > listening before? > > > > Well, listening right now, here's what I hear, "don't look back or > you'll turn to a pillar of salt." > > > > Thanks for listening, > > > > Ben > > > > > > - > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) Then how exactly do you masturbate? Internet porn? (If the answer is that you do not please include an address where I can send the flowers and condolences) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti wrote: > > > > Well, listening right now, here's what I hear, "don't look back or > you'll turn to a pillar of salt." > > > > Thanks for listening, > > > > Ben > > Indeed, and the moral of the story is that once you determine to go > forward and become a new person (resolution), "don't look back"! > > Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be > possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) and consequently fell > from her spiritual awareness to latent sex memories (Sodom) and > thereby lost her spiritual foundation and was, i.e.'turned to salt'! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, listening right now, here's what I hear, "don't look back or you'll turn to a pillar of salt." > > Thanks for listening, > > Ben Indeed, and the moral of the story is that once you determine to go forward and become a new person (resolution), "don't look back"! Don't be like Lot's wife who looked back (allowed her mind to be possessed by memories of past sexual behavior) and consequently fell from her spiritual awareness to latent sex memories (Sodom) and thereby lost her spiritual foundation and was, i.e.'turned to salt'!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
Ben, Poet is more your style than, say, educator. So many of your words are "so wide" that I feel less resonance. Your call to arms leaves me asking, "What arms?" At the 1971 Humboldt course, a hippie got up to the mike and braced Maharishi with the fact that (I think it was) Krishnamurti was insisting that nothing -- NOTHING -- could be done to reach God, and that "one must not have a futile intent." Maharishi said, "You notice this word "must." We all laughed. You call to us, Ben, but what did you use as your EXACT method to rise to the subtle airs to which your kite has soared? I've attached a paper cup to the string that anchors your wood and paper soul. I'm placing that cup to my ear now . . . Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ben Gilberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many years ago I discovered that wholehearted surrender to "Thy will be done" can result in a very deep awareness of God's allness. Why? Because that's what God wills that His Allness be known. And once it was known, my life became wonderful in many great ways. When you're sure God is all there is, your experience becomes rich with harmony, freedom, discovery, revelation, wonder, delight, love, healing, miracles, beauty, all that stuff. > > But then I eventually came to rest on my laurels and fell back to sleep. My deep awareness of God's allness shriveled into just an idea, an idea that became diluted with other ideas that made me dream illusions, until the illusions became dreadful enough to motivate me to surrender once again. > > That's happened four times in 30 years. The last time it happened I sank so deep into despair that my friends had to work hard to get me out; nudging, wooing, inspiring, nuking, encouraging, confronting till I finally could see what I needed to do. What I needed to do was become humble enough to dump the baloney and return once again to wholehearted desire that "Thy will be done." > > When I listen, God reveals His will to be always the same. What God wills is awareness of His allness, not just as an idea, but as a deep realization. It can only happen by listening, because only God can reveal it. But I listened. And it happened. > > So, with a new deep awareness that God is all, it was once again clear there's nothing to be concerned about, no reason to despair, and that released the illusions that despair and concern held in place, and allowed my life once again to reflect God's intent. > > Now if I get sloppy again, I'll fall back asleep. The only way I'll be able to stay awake is to keep listening to God. That's the only way awareness of God's allness will remain deep enough to allow His will to be done. That's simple enough. So why didn't I keep listening before? > > Well, listening right now, here's what I hear, "don't look back or you'll turn to a pillar of salt." > > Thanks for listening, > > Ben > > > - > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Veterans of Life
Sal, I never even made it to the cutting room floor. Don't know who those kids were. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > Thanks, Doug, it's been lucky for me and my brother and sister that > > our folks have shared their memories as thoroughly as they have, and > > that they're still available to resource despite their age. It's > > impossible to imagine the hardships and violence that so many people > > in the 20th C. endured; I can't, at least. > > > > The folks you mention below, and my folks, are incredibly resistant > > individuals, people of true character. We've been lucky to know > > them. > > OK, Marek, so which one of those beautiful kids at the end was you? > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Awake to God's Allness, or asleep in despair
Many years ago I discovered that wholehearted surrender to Thy will be done can result in a very deep awareness of Gods allness. Why? Because thats what God wills that His Allness be known. And once it was known, my life became wonderful in many great ways. When youre sure God is all there is, your experience becomes rich with harmony, freedom, discovery, revelation, wonder, delight, love, healing, miracles, beauty, all that stuff. But then I eventually came to rest on my laurels and fell back to sleep. My deep awareness of Gods allness shriveled into just an idea, an idea that became diluted with other ideas that made me dream illusions, until the illusions became dreadful enough to motivate me to surrender once again. Thats happened four times in 30 years. The last time it happened I sank so deep into despair that my friends had to work hard to get me out; nudging, wooing, inspiring, nuking, encouraging, confronting till I finally could see what I needed to do. What I needed to do was become humble enough to dump the baloney and return once again to wholehearted desire that Thy will be done. When I listen, God reveals His will to be always the same. What God wills is awareness of His allness, not just as an idea, but as a deep realization. It can only happen by listening, because only God can reveal it. But I listened. And it happened. So, with a new deep awareness that God is all, it was once again clear theres nothing to be concerned about, no reason to despair, and that released the illusions that despair and concern held in place, and allowed my life once again to reflect Gods intent. Now if I get sloppy again, Ill fall back asleep. The only way Ill be able to stay awake is to keep listening to God. Thats the only way awareness of Gods allness will remain deep enough to allow His will to be done. Thats simple enough. So why didnt I keep listening before? Well, listening right now, heres what I hear, dont look back or youll turn to a pillar of salt. Thanks for listening, Ben - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[FairfieldLife] Richest Man In India Builds $1 Billion House [video included]
What would you do if your net worth were $22 billion? If you were Indian businessman Mukesh Ambani, you might build yourself the world's most expensive home. As designed by Chicago architecture firm Perkins + Will, the in-progress glass-tower is estimated at $1 billion and is known to feature, at the least, a health club, multiple "safe" rooms, 3 helipads, 168 parking spaces and require 600 servants to maintain, and physically, the structure stands at 27 stories, or 570 feet tall. According to the Mumbai Mirror, the tower will also contain: Floor for car maintenance Sources said the Ambanis would prefer to have all their cars serviced and maintained at an in-house service centre. This centre will be set up on the seventh floor. Entertainment floor The eighth floor will have an entertainment centre comprising a mini-theatre with a seating capacity of 50. Balconies with gardens The rooftop of the mini-theatre will serve as a garden, and immediately above that, three more balconies with terrace gardens will be independent floors. The 'health' floors While the ninth floor will a 'refuge' floor -- meant to be used for rescue in emergencies -- two floors above that will be set aside for 'health.' One of these will have facilities for athletics and a swimming pool, while the other will have a health club complete with the latest gym equipment. Family The four floors at the top, that will provide a view of the Arabian Sea and a superb view of the city's skyline, will be for Mukesh, his wife Neeta, their three children and Mukesh's mother Kokilaben. Air space floor According to the plan, two floors above the family's residence will be set aside as maintenance areas, and on top of that will be an "air space floor," which will act as a control room for helicopters landing on the helipad above. Video of construction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ASxlu1eE Source of article: http://tinyurl.com/25a35z Note: Maybe King Tony can hit him up for a $billion or two donation...
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
Mark David Chapman described his shooting of John Lennon as witnessing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" > > wrote: > > > > > I would be > > > really curious to know how many people on this list drink > > > two 6oz. glasses of wine each day and can claim that they > > > feel no difference in the experience of deep meditation. > > > > If you drink right before you meditate, of course > > you're going to feel a difference. But alcohol gets > > metabolized by the system fairly quickly, so if you > > have a shot or two of something before you go to > > bed, say, at least in my experience, it doesn't > > affect meditation the next morning. Sometimes I > > have a drink before bed, sometimes I don't, and I've > > never noticed any difference. > > > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > > happened to me! > > This (profound witnessing after having a drink > or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* > the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, > an integral part of many of the stories about > enlightened teachers there. The Sixth Dalai > Lama used to drink everyone under the table > and *then* stand up and create spontaneous > poetry in Sanskrit that still hasn't been > rivaled by any other Tibetan spiritual poet. > The Zen Master poets Ikkyu and Bankei were > famous for creating their best and most spir- > itual poems and teachings while drunk. Hell, > have you ever read any of Chogyam Trungpa's > books? He wrote most of them *while* drunk. > Go figure. > > Repeat after me: DIFFERENT STROKES FOR > DIFERENT FOLKS! > > The whole problem is that people are trying to > come up with some "rule" or "law" that says > "Booze is bad for you...if you are spiritual > you have nothing to do with it" Well, I'm sorry, > but life is just not that simple, or simple-minded. > > It's the same thing with TM. Some here like it, > and think it's a great technique of meditation > that has taken them to some of the highest > experiences they've ever had. Others think of > it as a beginner's technique that got them > started with meditation, but that it pales in > comparison with other techniques they learned > later on. BOTH sets of people would be RIGHT. > For them. Any "shades of gray" in between would > be RIGHT. For them. There are no panaceas or > solutions or rules that work for everyone. Get > over it. > > > Very different with pot, again in my experience > > (many years ago). > > But there again, look into it and you will find > whole spiritual traditions in India that smoke > hashish as a sacrament, and in *huge* quantities. > Different strokes for different folks. > > I jumped into this whole tempest in a shot glass > because a couple of people got stupid behind the > subject. One tried to declare alcohol a poison, > as if there were no other point of view on the > subject, and the other tried to say that the fact > that he didn't drink made him somehow "better" > than those who do. > > That's just elitism. It has nothing to do with > fact, or with health, or with spiritual devel- > opment. There are MANY stories out there in the > world of spirituality about the use of alcohol, > some of them within Shankara's own tradition. > > For me, the bottom line is simple. If you don't > like to drink, don't drink. That's your right, and > your choice. But when you start claiming that having > made that choice makes you "better" than some other > human being on this planet, IMO you've turned into > something a great deal more offensive than a drunk. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - Enlightened Man prediction,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Off's enlightened man. > > He kicks below the belt, what kind of a gentleman is he? The > natural man? If he is the next enlightened contender as contended, > how would science measure him? Sage? > > > "The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a > million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one > in a hundred million to a life of poetic or divine life. To be awake > is to be alive. ...I know of no more encouraging fact than the > unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious > endeavor." Thoreau > > FFL: " but we're all just members of the lucky sperm & egg club, > born more or less into affluence and engendered with the desire, for > some reason or another, to explore consciousness." 162618 - > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and here he is: > > > > > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > Looks like bad street fighting to me... > > > > > > > Perhaps you are projecting the lifeless barren field of your > Sanskrit > > translations on to the actions of the man of the street, that will > take > > down your arrogant American steroid junkies that you have poisoned > the > > whole world with. Such pontifications of the vision_devoid_minds of > > your people which look like the mistake of the intellect lost in > the > > world of those imprisoned in the point value of the infinite > > meanlinglessness that drives you awake every morning. > > > > Such poetry as Machida is lost on the Rishiless_Ru_Mind. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > . > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Whatever, you want to believe about this is up to you, but on > November 26th 2007, I stuck my neck out here on FFL, and made a > prediction. > > I literally had never heard of "Lyoto Machida" or anything like him > at that time, but if you read this prediction below that was posted > in post number 156092 on FFL, on Nov. 27, 2007, you will see that I > predicted it. [snip] Your success in this prediction only partially neutralizes your psychotic episode of a month ago when you thought new.morning had impugned that you beat your wife and you were going to sue everyone. Remember that, nutjob? If you want to totally neutralize it you will have to not only predict the future but levitate over Lake Champlain and conjur up the legendary lake monster "Champy".
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Veterans of Life
On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: Thanks, Doug, it's been lucky for me and my brother and sister that our folks have shared their memories as thoroughly as they have, and that they're still available to resource despite their age. It's impossible to imagine the hardships and violence that so many people in the 20th C. endured; I can't, at least. The folks you mention below, and my folks, are incredibly resistant individuals, people of true character. We've been lucky to know them. OK, Marek, so which one of those beautiful kids at the end was you? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > ...and here he is: > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > Correction: there he was. > > "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." Here's a replacement link for the Shotokan karate master Off is talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acDg5-5pKUk :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...and here he is: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU Correction: there he was. "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - Enlightened Man prediction,
Off's enlightened man. He kicks below the belt, what kind of a gentleman is he? The natural man? If he is the next enlightened contender as contended, how would science measure him? Sage? "The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred million to a life of poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. ...I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor." Thoreau FFL: " but we're all just members of the lucky sperm & egg club, born more or less into affluence and engendered with the desire, for some reason or another, to explore consciousness." 162618 - --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and here he is: > > > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > Looks like bad street fighting to me... > > > > Perhaps you are projecting the lifeless barren field of your Sanskrit > translations on to the actions of the man of the street, that will take > down your arrogant American steroid junkies that you have poisoned the > whole world with. Such pontifications of the vision_devoid_minds of > your people which look like the mistake of the intellect lost in the > world of those imprisoned in the point value of the infinite > meanlinglessness that drives you awake every morning. > > Such poetry as Machida is lost on the Rishiless_Ru_Mind. > > OffWorld > > > . >
[FairfieldLife] Re: recipe for good health
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" > wrote: > > > I would be > > really curious to know how many people on this list drink > > two 6oz. glasses of wine each day and can claim that they > > feel no difference in the experience of deep meditation. > > If you drink right before you meditate, of course > you're going to feel a difference. But alcohol gets > metabolized by the system fairly quickly, so if you > have a shot or two of something before you go to > bed, say, at least in my experience, it doesn't > affect meditation the next morning. Sometimes I > have a drink before bed, sometimes I don't, and I've > never noticed any difference. > > FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine who was a TMer > would have profound witnessing experiences if he so > much as drank a glass of beer. That's never > happened to me! This (profound witnessing after having a drink or two) is far from uncommon. It is *all over* the literature of Tibet and India and Japan, an integral part of many of the stories about enlightened teachers there. The Sixth Dalai Lama used to drink everyone under the table and *then* stand up and create spontaneous poetry in Sanskrit that still hasn't been rivaled by any other Tibetan spiritual poet. The Zen Master poets Ikkyu and Bankei were famous for creating their best and most spir- itual poems and teachings while drunk. Hell, have you ever read any of Chogyam Trungpa's books? He wrote most of them *while* drunk. Go figure. Repeat after me: DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFERENT FOLKS! The whole problem is that people are trying to come up with some "rule" or "law" that says "Booze is bad for you...if you are spiritual you have nothing to do with it" Well, I'm sorry, but life is just not that simple, or simple-minded. It's the same thing with TM. Some here like it, and think it's a great technique of meditation that has taken them to some of the highest experiences they've ever had. Others think of it as a beginner's technique that got them started with meditation, but that it pales in comparison with other techniques they learned later on. BOTH sets of people would be RIGHT. For them. Any "shades of gray" in between would be RIGHT. For them. There are no panaceas or solutions or rules that work for everyone. Get over it. > Very different with pot, again in my experience > (many years ago). But there again, look into it and you will find whole spiritual traditions in India that smoke hashish as a sacrament, and in *huge* quantities. Different strokes for different folks. I jumped into this whole tempest in a shot glass because a couple of people got stupid behind the subject. One tried to declare alcohol a poison, as if there were no other point of view on the subject, and the other tried to say that the fact that he didn't drink made him somehow "better" than those who do. That's just elitism. It has nothing to do with fact, or with health, or with spiritual devel- opment. There are MANY stories out there in the world of spirituality about the use of alcohol, some of them within Shankara's own tradition. For me, the bottom line is simple. If you don't like to drink, don't drink. That's your right, and your choice. But when you start claiming that having made that choice makes you "better" than some other human being on this planet, IMO you've turned into something a great deal more offensive than a drunk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > > > > > ...and here he is: > > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > > > OffWorld > > > > Looks like bad street fighting to me... > Perhaps you are projecting the lifeless barren field of your Sanskrit translations on to the actions of the man of the street, that will take down your arrogant American steroid junkies that you have poisoned the whole world with. Such pontifications of the vision_devoid_minds of your people which look like the mistake of the intellect lost in the world of those imprisoned in the point value of the infinite meanlinglessness that drives you awake every morning. Such poetry as Machida is lost on the Rishiless_Ru_Mind. OffWorld .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Off_World - scary prediction, or, in the right place, right time?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...and here he is: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=wef55taUSyU > > OffWorld > Looks like bad street fighting to me... http://www.metacafe.com/watch/830218/lethal_street_fighting/
