[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like Sal is suffering from Kangen Water Deficiency Syndrome. Maybe some Laughing Yoga will help: http://youtube.com/watch?v=31TTcjYw0hQ Ha! I was about to reply to Sal and say it's the links to youtube that are the most annoying! Lighten up, Sal. We live now in a multimedia universe, in which, to make a point about, say, bickering old ladies, in response to two...uh... bickering old ladies, we could go on and on in words, waxing nostalgic about the good old days when growing older was still associated with growing wiser. Or we could just post one link. Seems to me that the issue is a matter of the most efficient use of resources. If the point is to show how ludicrous some behavior is, sometimes a picture is better than a thousand words, and one YouTube clip is better than a thousand pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prM9gIkozh4 Or, if one wanted to make a point about Hamlet and its *real* message (which is about sex, of course, and about Hamlet being a real wuss who can't make a decision), one could run on and on in words, or one could post videos from Hamlet's actual psychiatric sessions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCR308aMwok Or, failing that, one could merely remind folks what *real* Shakespearean commentary is all about by posting an example of it in a new film: http://www.trailerspy.com/movie-trailers/view/468/rosencrantz-and-guildenstern-are-undead-trailer/ or http://tinyurl.com/3ybfej Or one can alert people to a new production of Hamlet itself, so that they can avoid the pompous critics and just see the original play for them- selves, as performed by great actors and dragons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1j-wvCtzuI See? Posting these links is MUCH more efficient than trying to describe the same thing in words. The funny links get people laughing at silly people doing stupid things on YouTube, and then it's easier for them to recognize silly people doing silly things on Fairfield Life. --- Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Here's the question: what's missing that is needed to make the creepiness go away? A soul? Here's another question: what's missing that's needed to make these silly URL wild-goose chases go away? A brain? Enough already. A huge percentage of posts are now simply people posting websites to send others to. Is this really imroving the quality of posts here on FF Life? I'd almost be willing to take some kind of poll, to see if I'm the one who needs to wake up, cause I find it really detracting from the generally interesting discussions here. Looks like Sal is suffering from Kangen Water Deficiency Syndrome. Maybe some Laughing Yoga will help: http://youtube.com/watch?v=31TTcjYw0hQ 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] You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
[FairfieldLife] �Hillary= Mocking and Killing the Dream?�
Hillary is attempting to kill the spirit of the Democratic Party, similar to LBJ, in 1968, with his disasterous Vietnam war. Back in the day, it was RFK who was in the process of restoring that spirit back in the day. Now, in our time, Barack Obama has come to restore that same spirit. At its essence it is the message of MLK, a spiritual message of coming together. A message of transcending differences, of unification. Able to accomplish something bigger than consumerism, war without end and a Babylonian type society, where anything goes. Confustion created by divisiveness, fear and false rumor. Appealing to our 'lower angels'... John McCain will be playing the same part in the fall, of dividing and scaring and pretending hes Dwight D. Eisenhower... He's no Eisenhower! Ike was the first to see the the effects of spiritual corruption of the people of the United States, in giving away their power to corporations, war-mongers, and consumerism. Hillary Clinton and their hacks, are doing all they can to kill the dream. But for what end? Sure the ends justify the means, but what does her end game look like? Similar to the end game in Iraq? Will the end game look hopeful,happy and upliftying or treacherous and divisive and worse? And, above all: What could be the motivation for killing the 'Dream'? - Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.
[FairfieldLife] Tibet: Open Letter from Concerned Tibetan Studies Scholars
http://www.tibetopenletter.org/ A STATEMENT BY CONCERNED TIBETAN STUDIES SCHOLARS ON THE CURRENT CRISIS IN TIBET ADDRESSED TO PRESIDENT HU JINTAO AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA President Hu Jintao People’s Republic of China Zhongnanhai, Xichengqu, Beijing City People’s Republic of China Dear Mr. President, Over the course of the last two weeks the world has witnessed an outbreak of protests across the Tibetan plateau, followed in most instances by a harsh, violent repression. In the majority of cases these protests have been peaceful. The result has been an unknown number of arrests and the loss of numerous lives, which have been overwhelmingly Tibetan. This has understandably triggered widespread concern and anguish across the globe. As scholars engaged in Tibetan Studies, we are especially disturbed by what has been happening. The civilization we study is not simply a subject of academic enquiry: it is the heritage and fabric of a living people and one of the world’s great cultural legacies. We express our deep sorrow at the horrible deaths of the innocent, including Chinese as well as Tibetans. Life has been altered for the worse in places with which we are well acquainted; tragedy has entered the lives of a people we know well. At the time this statement is being written, continued arrests and shootings are being reported even of those involved in peaceful protest, the accused are being subjected to summary justice without due process and basic rights, and countless others are being forced to repeat political slogans and denunciations of their religious leader. Silence in the face of what is happening in Tibet is no longer an option. At this moment the suppression of political dissent appears to be the primary goal of authorities across all the Tibetan areas within China, which have been isolated from the rest of China and the outside world. But such actions will not eliminate the underlying sense of grievance to which Tibetans are giving voice. As scholars we have a vested interest in freedom of expression. The violation of that basic freedom and the criminalization of those sentiments that the Chinese government finds difficult to hear are counterproductive. They will contribute to instability and tension, not lessen them. It cannot be that the problem lies in the refusal of Tibetans to live within restrictions on speech and expression that none of us would accept in our own lives. It is not a question of what Tibetans are saying: it is a question of how they are being heard and answered. The attribution of the current unrest to the Dalai Lama represents a reluctance on the part of the Chinese government to acknowledge and engage with policy failures that are surely the true cause of popular discontent. The government’s continuing demonization of the Dalai Lama, which falls far below any standard of discourse accepted by the international community, serves only to fuel Tibetan anger and alienation. A situation has been created which can only meet with the strongest protest from those of us who have dedicated our professional lives to understanding Tibet’s past and its present; its culture and its society. Indeed, the situation has generated widespread shock among peoples inside and outside China as well, and we write in full sympathy with the twelve-point petition submitted by a group of Chinese writers and intellectuals on 22 March. Therefore, we call for an immediate end to the use of force against Tibetans within China. We call for an end to the suppression of Tibetan opinion, whatever form that suppression takes. And we call for the clear recognition that Tibetans, together with all citizens of China, are entitled to the full rights to free speech and expression guaranteed by international agreements and accepted human rights norms. Jean-Luc Achard (Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Paris) Agata Bareja-Starzyńska (Warsaw University) Robert Barnett (Columbia University) Christopher Beckwith (Indiana University) Yael Bentor (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) Henk Blezer (Leiden University) Anne-Marie Blondeau (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris) Benjamin Bogin (Georgetown University) Jens Braarvig (University of Oslo) Katia Buffetrille (École pratique des Hautes Études, Paris) José Ignacio Cabezón (University of California, Santa Barbara) Cathy Cantwell (University of Oxford) Bryan J. Cuevas (Florida State University) Jacob Dalton (Yale University) Ronald Davidson (Fairfield University) Karl Debreczeny (Independent Scholar) Andreas Doctor (Kathmandu University) Thierry Dodin (Bonn University) Brandon Dotson (School of Oriental and African Studies, London) Georges Dreyfus (Williams College) Douglas S. Duckworth (University of North Carolina) John Dunne (Emory University) Johan Elverskog (Southern Methodist University) Elena De Rossi Filibeck (University
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity and perceived everything as One that everyone around you did, too? :-) Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. And, more important, there are important distinctions between them if one is ever to transcend them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving that the universe is illusory from one state of consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer ass. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
Turq, if you plan to post links the FFL way, you have to do it the FFL way, which means link only, no conversation, no description beyond what's in the subject line, like so: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/171969 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/171977 It's perfectly okay if the description in the subject line is misleading. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like Sal is suffering from Kangen Water Deficiency Syndrome. Maybe some Laughing Yoga will help: http://youtube.com/watch?v=31TTcjYw0hQ Ha! I was about to reply to Sal and say it's the links to youtube that are the most annoying! Lighten up, Sal. We live now in a multimedia universe, in which, to make a point about, say, bickering old ladies, in response to two...uh... bickering old ladies, we could go on and on in words, waxing nostalgic about the good old days when growing older was still associated with growing wiser. Or we could just post one link. Seems to me that the issue is a matter of the most efficient use of resources. If the point is to show how ludicrous some behavior is, sometimes a picture is better than a thousand words, and one YouTube clip is better than a thousand pictures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prM9gIkozh4 Or, if one wanted to make a point about Hamlet and its *real* message (which is about sex, of course, and about Hamlet being a real wuss who can't make a decision), one could run on and on in words, or one could post videos from Hamlet's actual psychiatric sessions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCR308aMwok Or, failing that, one could merely remind folks what *real* Shakespearean commentary is all about by posting an example of it in a new film: http://www.trailerspy.com/movie-trailers/view/468/rosencrantz-and-guildenstern-are-undead-trailer/ or http://tinyurl.com/3ybfej Or one can alert people to a new production of Hamlet itself, so that they can avoid the pompous critics and just see the original play for them- selves, as performed by great actors and dragons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1j-wvCtzuI See? Posting these links is MUCH more efficient than trying to describe the same thing in words. The funny links get people laughing at silly people doing stupid things on YouTube, and then it's easier for them to recognize silly people doing silly things on Fairfield Life. --- Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Duveyoung wrote: Here's the question: what's missing that is needed to make the creepiness go away? A soul? Here's another question: what's missing that's needed to make these silly URL wild-goose chases go away? A brain? Enough already. A huge percentage of posts are now simply people posting websites to send others to. Is this really imroving the quality of posts here on FF Life? I'd almost be willing to take some kind of poll, to see if I'm the one who needs to wake up, cause I find it really detracting from the generally interesting discussions here. Looks like Sal is suffering from Kangen Water Deficiency Syndrome. Maybe some Laughing Yoga will help: http://youtube.com/watch?v=31TTcjYw0hQ 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] You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity and perceived everything as One that everyone around you did, too? :-) Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. And, more important, there are important distinctions between them if one is ever to transcend them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving that the universe is illusory from one state of consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer ass. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. No not at all. All paths consist of a Base or experiential View, a Path and a Fruit or a result. If the Base or the Path are different, the Result will be different. If the Base or Path are the same, the Fruition will be the same. If we want to go to New York City, we can take a jet plane, or a train, or a bus, or a car, or a bicycle, or walk-- but in every case we come to New York City. So different paths can lead to the same goal. But here the Base is the same: the human being who decides to go to New York; only the means of transportation differ. If the Base is the same, the result will be the same. So although we do arrive at the same locale, it's not because their paths were different, the Base, the experiential View was the same. Some systems which try to be inclusive of other ways of seeing, take it to a fault by trying to include everything: all paths lead to the same place; same mountain, different paths. However in the attempt to foster non-sectarianism, the relative distinctions and uniqueness is fudged.
[FairfieldLife] Posting Guideline on FFL for Links?
Limit of 50 links or posts a week, which ever comes first? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you plan to post links the FFL way, you have to do it the FFL way, which means link only, no conversation, no description beyond what's in the subject line, like so: It's perfectly okay if the description in the subject line is misleading
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? How could it? What is there to *perceive* reality? What is there to be perceived? Reality is an irrelevant term to the Transcendent. If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. You're missing the point. There is no one TO distinguish in transcendence. There is nothing TO distinguish. There is no perceiver, and there is no perception. The Transcendent, as defined by MMY, is devoid of characteristics or attributes. How then does it have anything whatsoever to do with the concept of reality? --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity and perceived everything as One that everyone around you did, too? :-) Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. And, more important, there are important distinctions between them if one is ever to transcend them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving that the universe is illusory from one state of consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried to tell them they don't
[FairfieldLife] TM rendered obsolete. Oprah Tolle Eclipse dead Maharishi and TMorg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you plan to post links the FFL way, you have to do it the FFL way, which means link only, no conversation, no description beyond what's in the subject line, like so: http://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/webcast/archive/archive_watchnow.jsp
[FairfieldLife] Jai Guru Dev, my Regiment Deploys to Iraq soon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you plan to post links the FFL way, you have to do it the FFL way, which means link only, no conversation, no description beyond what's in the subject line, It's perfectly okay if the description in the subject line is misleading. like so: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=JQ1O7NjvGvc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? How could it? What is there to *perceive* reality? What is there to be perceived? Reality is an irrelevant term to the Transcendent. The Transcendent *is* Reality. If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. You're missing the point. No, she's absolutely right on target. There is no one TO distinguish in transcendence. There is nothing TO distinguish. There is no perceiver, and there is no perception. The Transcendent, as defined by MMY, is devoid of characteristics or attributes. Um, no. How then does it have anything whatsoever to do with the concept of reality? Poornamadah Poornamidam Poornaat Poornamudachyate Poornasya Poornamaadaya Poornamevavashishyate This is full, That is full. Even though this fullness came out of that fullness, all that remains is fullness itself. --Isha Upanishad I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. The One Reality endlessrainintoapapercup was referring to is what you're calling Being. That's the Highest Reality, not some privileged relative reality among many.
[FairfieldLife] Obama: New Politics, or New Pandering?
From: A New Politics? Or A New Pandering? By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal ...I wonder if [Obama] understands that politics isn't a pillow fight and isn't supposed to be. He and his supporters complain so much about the mean, nasty Clintons. What I've heard from Sen. Clinton isn't the politics of personal destruction; it's legitimate criticism and contrasts. His readiness to be president is a major issue, so why shouldn't she question it? It's her duty, in fact. When I hear his supporters gripe about how roughly the Evil Clinton Machine is treating him, I hear an attempt to stigmatize the kind of robust give-and -take that politics is all about. It makes me wonder if Obama will crumple, as John Kerry did in 2004, when the full force of the Republican attack machine hits him I want change as much as the next guy, but We are the change doesn't cut it. After three years in the Senate, Obama must know that Washington is a dense ecology of entrenched programs and bureaucracies and client groups, not one of which can be waved aside with blandishments about change. He must know that politicians follow inspiration 10 days a year and incentives the other 355, and that putting a new face in the Oval Office won't change those incentives after the honeymoon is over. So what's his plan? I consulted The Audacity of Hope, his political book, and found it full of rhetoric such as what's needed is a broad majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill -- who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal and we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings, etc., etc. But how will he actually bring about this political transformation as president? He warns that it won't be easy. He says it will require tough choices and courage. OK, but WHAT'S THE PLAN? This isn't to say I know exactly how to do it, he writes. I don't. Oh. I'm not sure if this is disarming modesty or outrageous chutzpah. I don't think Obama is cynical, although he may be naive. I think he believes that once in a while a new kind of politician, with a new kind of mandate from a new kind of electorate, can set a new tone and direction. He's right, up to a point. Ronald Reagan showed in 1981 what a strong mandate from a changed electorate could accomplish, though only for a year or so. But there's also a kind of pandering in what Obama is doing. A few years ago, a pair of political scientists, John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss- Morse, looked at evidence from surveys and focus groups and drew some fairly startling conclusions. Most Americans, they found, think there are easy, straightforward solutions out there that everyone would agree on if only biased special interests and self-serving politicians would get out of the way. They want to be governed by ENSIDs: empathetic non-self-interested decision makers. This is pure fantasy, of course. But indulging it is Obama's stock-in-trade. In today's Washington, the only way to get sustainable bipartisanship -- bipartisanship over a period of years, not weeks -- is with divided government, which Obama and a Democratic Congress obviously can't provide. True, Hillary Rodham Clinton can't provide that either. He might be better than she at working across party lines (although in the Senate she has been quite good at it, arguably better than he -- and John McCain has been best of all). But to promise a new kind of politics borders on chicanery http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And haven't you heard the story about the buddhist monk who reached enlightenment only to discover, to his surprise, that everyone else was enlightened too? We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. No path is a recipe that automatically produces enlightenment or states of consciousness. Enlightenment reconciles all the relative differences, and reveals the path to be illusory because there was never anywhere to go anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Spiritually hot in FF, Snatam Kaur played to near full house at FF Civic Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if you plan to post links the FFL way, you have to do it the FFL way, which means link only, no conversation, no description beyond what's in the subject line, like so: http://tinyurl.com/3cnccy http://www.spiritvoyage.com/shopping/detail.cfm?sku=CDS-001900
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. All these states and experiences are contained within the whole of reality. You are arguing that the individual trees exist, but not the forest. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Exactly. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity and perceived everything as One that everyone around you did, too? :-) Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. And, more important, there are important distinctions between them if one is ever to transcend them. I would probably be more inclined to say that there is nothing to transcend. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving that the universe is illusory from one state of consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's just perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if you walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer ass. :-) I'm not claiming the universe is illusory. I was actually saying that it is real.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:44 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And haven't you heard the story about the buddhist monk who reached enlightenment only to discover, to his surprise, that everyone else was enlightened too? Well if it's the same story, everyone was provisionally enlightened. :-) Big difference from the way you are presenting it. Neoadvaitin's often make a similar mistake in not getting the relative distinction. We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. Not according to Hinduism and Buddhism: the relative distinctions are actual and they can lead to differing states of consciousness. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word real. From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience reality via nonceptutal cognition. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. Delivers us? No path is a recipe that automatically produces enlightenment or states of consciousness. Enlightenment reconciles all the relative differences, and reveals the path to be illusory because there was never anywhere to go anyway. Well, you're welcome to your POV, but at least from the POV of Tibetan Buddhism and it's view, path and result there are important distinctions that give rise to important differences in the goal. Similarly, in Hinduism someone practicing a yoga- or samkhya- darshana would tend towards a dualistic CC style of awakening, a Vedantin would tend more towards a unified result, etc. The way you're describing things is more a Mean Green Meme view of reality, it feels it has to include everything, and that's also it's downfall. Very common nowadays.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eckhart Tolle and Winfrey, a Mass Secular Sprituality
This is also available as a free podcast video download in iTunes. I have yet to view them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eckhart Tolle and Oprah transform a world? Ex-pats, you seen what is going on with them in America? Secular spiritual teaching and secular spiritual counseling to modern culture. 700,000 people the first nite. A million or more for the second. 5 million and then again. 'Attentive' viewers getting spiritual teaching spiritual practice that you would recognize if you are of the old TMmovement. Pretty incredible in a way of the new media. An hour and a half at a time. Is more secular spiritual teaching and more people taught spiritual practice than even Maharishi accomplished in 50 years. Is proly quite more an impact as a social phenomena than a bunch of guys (rajas) in burger king hats and robes to compete with. If you have not caught what is going on, you might back up and view the archive `classes' with Eckhart and Oprah. Can find it on Oprah.comIs quite a thing going on there.As it goes along is also a dyana type advaitan/buddhist meditation taught without any cultural filter or overlay. Even a led meditation on television. Is a Secular spirituality. Starts off in the first hour with them giving a very 'transcendentalist' secular definition to spirituality and then bloody noses to doctrinal religion by contrast. Goes on to really a pretty good transcendentalist's social criticism with very little jargon of religion. http://www.oprah.com click through the various links to find the archive download-able link to the classes' that have happened. The week's class with them is every Monday nite. That becomes available the next day by noon to download. Is excellent secular spiritual teaching/counseling throughout. Pretty incredible bump it gives to modern culture using the facility of all that is internet. http://www.oprah.com/obc_classic/webcast/archive/archive_watchnow.jsp This is a new thing on the internet to have so many people signing on at the same time to view one thing together. Is work in progress as far as the connection to the live broadcast. They have it figured out pretty well now after several weeks. Live interactive video all around the globe. You can download the archive classes though for free. Something seems is going on. Take a look at it if you have not. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
I must be sadistic. [Actually it's a vindication of what I and countless others have been saying for years.] Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch in Nationals home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
do.rflex wrote: I must be sadistic. [Actually it's a vindication of what I and countless others have been saying for years.] Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch in Nationals home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI He should be in Leavenworth instead of at a baseball game. Boo to the chief Lord Chucklenuts!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must be sadistic. [Actually it's a vindication of what I and countless others have been saying for years.] Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch in Nationals home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI I just wish I'd been there to join in. Blowing razzberries at the screen while listening to the boos isn't the same thing. It's been one of the very few times ordinary Americans have had a chance to express their disgust directly to this bozo and know that he heard it. I guess you have to give him some credit for braving it; it couldn't have come as a surprise.
[FairfieldLife] Bush chaser
To take away the foul taste of the Idiot-in-Chief pretending to be part of our national pastime, here's a smart and thoroughly delightful kid-- Kennyi Aouad, age 11, from Terre Haute, Indiana-- spelling a very difficult word correctly at the 2007 Scripps Spelling Bee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3JSYDApec A real day-brightener, by me.
[FairfieldLife] Decriminalization of drugs vs Deviancy Nurtured
What do you think of this woman? Me, I'm confused. img src=http://features-temp.cgsociety.org/gallerycrits/8730/8730_120094828\ 2_medium.jpg height=550 width=375 http://tinyurl.com/397e4q The above woman is a from-scratch CGI construction. How real will we allow technology to become -- when is artifice so close to real that it must be treated as real? What didn't they allow the Star Trek folks to do in the hollodeck? Did Piccard program the holodeck such that he could have sex with CGI Deanna Troi? What if they invent a drug you can take that will give you a complete hallucination of being actually in the presence of God and getting all your questions answered? Should it be allowed? What are the limitations a culture should/should-not impose upon helping people with deviancies that commonly offend? Case in point: is it legitimate to compare legalization of CGI images of child pornography to the legalization of hard drugs? I'd say most folks here would like to decriminalize drugs, so going with that, I ask: Should society limit how much pedophiles may use completely realistic but artificial constructs that feed their psychologically suspect personalities by indulging in various dysfunctional dynamics such that the fetish is supported, maintained, and grown more? Freedom-privacy vs. harming oneself. It's one thing to say that drug users should be able to slowly kill themselves with harsh chemicals in the privacy of their own homes, but if a pedophile is allowed to psychologically damage his/her nervous system progressively with repeated exposures to offensive-to-others-but-not-real images, we could argue that that will increase the likelihood of that pedophile acting out with real children. It's a theory that I think is true. If we allow drug users the right to harm themselves and if we make the drugs cheaply available at any pharmacy, it seems we would hypocritically saying, Yeah, get really as addicted and crazy as you want with your crack pipe, and we don't expect that you'll become criminal when the drugs finally rot your brain to a serious extent. If a man says that the woman above looks desirable -- desirable means triggers processes in his nervous system that are normally triggered by the face of a real woman -- most folks are not offended, but if the CGI woman was naked and 20 years younger, suddenly any man in possession of the image would be guilty of the crime of having forbidden material -- at least in certain states in the USA. See? It's easy to decide to decriminalize drugs, but I find that emotionally I cannot espouse letting CGI artists churn out the most vile of images for fetishists of every sort -- even though, RATS, logically, I cannot justify it. To me, I'm being prejudiced against certain kinds of porn while allowing other kinds, because guys are like that and what's a little nudity for crissakes. So, we allow adult men to view photo after photo of real women being, say, bound and gagged and sexually objectified, and in doing so, we seem to be okay with them nurturing their desires to bind and gag a woman in real life -- perhaps without the woman's permission. If we allow everything, then would it all just sort itself out eventually with a small percentage of the populations living in legal crack houses, another small percentage in holodecks having sex with kids, and another small percentage doing etc. etc. etc.? Where does it end? Given that we might be in Kali Yuga and things are going at light speed into the shitter, we may find that technology will out-pace our ability to get jaded to changes, and we'll all be shocked -- shocked I tell you -- like Sundayschoolmarms in 1910 being given an iPod with typical porn from today. Within 30 years there will be very realistic, high tech, sexual robots. Want one? But the robots will come in all ages-sexes-species-psychologies. What do you do if you see your next door neighbor give his kid a Hannibal Lecter doll that speaks endlessly about the thrill of the kill? I hope someone can cut to the chase on all this and set me straight -- otherwise, I'm afraid of what's just around the corner. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. No path is a recipe that automatically produces enlightenment or states of consciousness. Enlightenment reconciles all the relative differences, and reveals the path to be illusory because there was never anywhere to go anyway. Beautifully said. Given the perfect simplicity of this construct, depending on what we are interested in along the way, there are endless opportunities to explore, and get thoroughly lost in, all of the layers of reality, as Vaj demostrates here often. It has occurred to me more than once that Vaj is unable to accept this utter simplicity of life, for to do so would render moot and rather meaningless the endless permutations of consciousness of which he has grown so fond; the goal ought never be reached.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush chaser
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To take away the foul taste of the Idiot-in-Chief pretending to be part of our national pastime, here's a smart and thoroughly delightful kid-- Kennyi Aouad, age 11, from Terre Haute, Indiana-- spelling a very difficult word correctly at the 2007 Scripps Spelling Bee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3JSYDApec A real day-brightener, by me. Hooray! for that bright young man!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Angela Mailander wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? Yes, they are confusing the path with the goal. There are no 'paths', Angela, and no 'goals'. There are no 'Buddhas'; there is no enlightenment - these are all just terms used to facilitate communication. In reality, there is nothing, no things, no events, and no absolutes. There is only emptiness - there's no nirvana and no samsara. There's no one and no two, there are no absolute reals, neither duals nor non-duals. There is only vast emptiness; nothing holy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 31, 2008, at 11:44 AM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, I don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And haven't you heard the story about the buddhist monk who reached enlightenment only to discover, to his surprise, that everyone else was enlightened too? Well if it's the same story, everyone was provisionally enlightened. :-) Big difference from the way you are presenting it. The story expresses an aspect of enlightened POV which sees the quality of awakened consciousness everywhere and in everyone. That's not the same as saying that everyone else also experiences enlightenment. Neoadvaitin's often make a similar mistake in not getting the relative distinction. We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)... Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism and the so-called philosophia perennis which you object to. I'm only speaking from my own experience and reflections on reality. Ideas are abstract, but there is something Real to be known, and it is not limited or obstructed by any of our beliefs about it. It expresses through all that is. All of this is an expression of it. When we try to describe and define it, we are the metaphorical blind who describe the different parts of the elephant. All paths are relative. Since all paths are relative, there are relative difference between them. Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / Buddhahood. Not all paths lead to the same state of consciousness. As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) And everything is real. The relative differences between paths are an abstract and academic matter. Not according to Hinduism and Buddhism: the relative distinctions are actual and they can lead to differing states of consciousness. The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word real. From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience reality via nonceptutal cognition. Isn't this what I was also saying? We form the deepest intention to see beyond these obscurations and know the true nature of reality, to see directly, via nonceptual cognition. You've stated it very precisely and beautifully. If you feel like it, say more about the Path of Seeing. It is this one-pointed intention which becomes formed in the deepest levels of consciousness that finally delivers us to the goal. Delivers us? Does this word choice evoke theism? None intended. No path is a recipe that automatically
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Judy wrote: This is full, That is full. Even though this fullness came out of that fullness, all that remains is fullness itself. --Isha Upanishad Isha is of course, a dualistic doctrine. There cannot be two fulls, nor even one full. There is no 'fullness'. Refer to the Four Negations: In reality all phenomena are empty of 'own nature'. There is no 'essence' of things. Things and events and objects have no intrinsic reality apart from conditions. There is dependent origination but no causation - things do not arise from causes; things and events are not created or destroyed; there is no movement. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. All truth statements are conventional. Change is impossible; things do not move and one thing does not become another thing. Suffering, actions, bodies, doers, and results are all unreal. Time is unreal because present and future are all relative. The Seven States of Conciousness are also unreal. There is neither suffering nor its causation nor a path to its cessation. The three gunas are unreal and there is neither the Movement, nor the Technique, nor the Maharishi. Birth, death, suffering and Nirvana itself is an illusion too. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Dialectics and the four-cornered negation. Author: Willytex Date: Tues, Jan 18 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2q3mwa Sankara and his followers, like Nagarjuna and his followers, say that none of the four forms is applicable to the phenomenal world or any of its objects absolutely, because the phenomenal world is a world of relativity. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Nagarjuna's Law of the Excluded Middle Author: Willytex Date: Tues, Feb 8 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2p3sod
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: New Politics, or New Pandering?
Judy wrote: Obama: New Politics, or New Pandering? http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm The problem is that they express a virulently anti-American ideology. People don't condemn the U.S., even occasionally, in the kind of terms Wright used unless they hate their country. Read more: 'Obama lowers the bar again' Posted by Paul Mirengoff: Powerline, March 28, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/24jwlh That is, unless they are Judy Stein or John Manning!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Decriminalization of drugs vs Deviancy Nurtured
Ed wrote: Me, I'm confused. So, Ed, you're confused. 'The dying of the light' by Thaddeus Tremayne http://tinyurl.com/32gwdt Comments: How long before some green nut shoots up a school in order to reduce the number of children who are casting a carbon footprint? And surely some public figure will defend the action. The fact that such a thing is actually possible shows how far the green nuts have gone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
That was my point precisely. There is NO distinction in the transcendent. No distinction means no distinction: No distinguisher and nothing to distinguish. So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. This is a philosophically precise definition, not just a definition to satisfy the casual reader. An older commentator, Suzuki, speaks of Buddhist emptiness. I imagine he uses the locution to distinguish the transcendent from the emptiness that Existentialists speak about. But if upon merging with transcendent emptiness, one were to find a sign saying Buddhist then it would not be empty. Now, to the extent that any path is distinct from the goal, paths may be as different from one another as can be, but if they lead to the transcendent, then they all have the same goal. If they do not lead to this same goal, then they are not paths as defined in (and by) the context of the present discussion. This, again, is a philosophically precise definition. Some paths may be shorter or more efficient than others, but that is another discussion. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead somewhere we'd want to go--all true enough. But One Reality refers to the transcendent, does it not? How could it? What is there to *perceive* reality? What is there to be perceived? Reality is an irrelevant term to the Transcendent. If there is some content in the transcendent that would serve to distinguish it from some other transcendent, then it ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that content. You're missing the point. There is no one TO distinguish in transcendence. There is nothing TO distinguish. There is no perceiver, and there is no perception. The Transcendent, as defined by MMY, is devoid of characteristics or attributes. How then does it have anything whatsoever to do with the concept of reality? --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. I've always had little patience for those who claim that there is one reality, or worse, a highest reality. They all coexist at all moments; they all have the same source and the same Being as their essence. Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only one reality, then the moment anyone realized UC, that should be the ONLY reality operating in the universe. Right? It is a very large and all-inclusive statement. It acknowledges everything that appears to exist and everything that doesn't. It's commonly addressed as a false view in Buddhist debate and it's common to hear such statements with the spread of Neovedism, Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. If everything were one or 'all is one' than when Buddha Shakyamuni was enlightened, everyone would have become enlightened. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, that ain't happened yet (relatively speaking). :-) The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen Any Day Now. :-) We live in the illusion of many teachings and many paths, but when the One Reality is known, it is found to be everywhere equally, in all teachings and paths. But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that level. I never was a fan of perennialism, the so-called philosophia perennis. Just more philosophical BS to me (sorry)...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
John wrote: Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI Proof positive that liberals have no class.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? Easy. Who is the *perceiver* of reality? If you're claiming that transcendence is the reality, who is the *perceiver* while you are transcending? If there is one, you aren't transcending. As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And again, who is the *perceiver* of this so-called reality? Are you claiming that you can perceive all of the things you listed above?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: And what difference is there between paths to enlightenment? There is One Reality which is known or not known. This Reality is all that is. Well I know some would agree with such an absolute statement. But no, don't believe that there is One reality that is all there is. But absolutists do believe that. I don't know what absolutists say and believe, but I question what is absolute about the statement that there is one reality. The very language implies that there is ONLY one reality. This is patently obvious, because, as Maharishi said so often, Knowledge is structured in consciousness. Same object of perception, dif- ferent realities. If a person in waking looks at an object, he sees one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep sleep, another. And then you move on to the more interest- ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another reality, one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, also dual but with one aspect of the duality more lively. From UC, still another. All these states and experiences are contained within the whole of reality. You are arguing that the individual trees exist, but not the forest. I am merely stating that if your metaphor is that the forest represents reality, the forest does not have the ability to perceive the forest. So the concept of reality is unprovable. If you claim that you can perceive it, there is still a you. If you claim that you have transcended you, there is no one there TO perceive. Thus reality is an empty concept.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Angela Mailander wrote: So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. In Yoga there is no goal, and Yoga is not a step-wise path; Knowledge is Light, ignorance is nescience. Where there is Light, there is no nescience. As H.H. Swami Bramhananda said: The techniques are not there to throw light on the Brahman-Essence. They are there to dispel darkness. Brahman-Essence is Light itself; it needs no other light to illuminate it. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Where there is Light, there is no nescience From: Willytex Date: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 12:24 am http://tinyurl.com/23skll This story illustrates the concept of the mind as a perciever, a witness, something that cannot be itself subject to analysis. The mind cannot examine itself, and since the mind cannot become an object of its own perception, its existence can only be understood intuitively through the practice of inner enquiry. Don't just do something, sit there. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Don't just do something, sit there From: Willytex Date: Fri, Oct 7 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yv9th8
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. In Yoga there is no goal, and Yoga is not a step-wise path; Knowledge is Light, ignorance is nescience. Where there is Light, there is no nescience. As H.H. Swami Bramhananda said: The techniques are not there to throw light on the Brahman-Essence. They are there to dispel darkness. Brahman-Essence is Light itself; it needs no other light to illuminate it. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Where there is Light, there is no nescience From: Willytex Date: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 12:24 am http://tinyurl.com/23skll This story illustrates the concept of the mind as a perciever, a witness, something that cannot be itself subject to analysis. The mind cannot examine itself, and since the mind cannot become an object of its own perception, its existence can only be understood intuitively through the practice of inner enquiry. Don't just do something, sit there. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Don't just do something, sit there From: Willytex Date: Fri, Oct 7 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yv9th8 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: This is full, That is full. Even though this fullness came out of that fullness, all that remains is fullness itself. --Isha Upanishad Isha is of course, a dualistic doctrine. There cannot be two fulls, nor even one full. There is no 'fullness'. Isn't fullness just another way to say emptiness? Is not all that remains is fullness descriptive of a unified state and not a dualistic one? Refer to the Four Negations: In reality all phenomena are empty of 'own nature'. There is no 'essence' of things. Things and events and objects have no intrinsic reality apart from conditions. There is dependent origination but no causation - things do not arise from causes; things and events are not created or destroyed; there is no movement. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. All truth statements are conventional. Change is impossible; things do not move and one thing does not become another thing. Suffering, actions, bodies, doers, and results are all unreal. Time is unreal because present and future are all relative. The Seven States of Conciousness are also unreal. There is neither suffering nor its causation nor a path to its cessation. The three gunas are unreal and there is neither the Movement, nor the Technique, nor the Maharishi. Birth, death, suffering and Nirvana itself is an illusion too. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Dialectics and the four-cornered negation. Author: Willytex Date: Tues, Jan 18 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2q3mwa Sankara and his followers, like Nagarjuna and his followers, say that none of the four forms is applicable to the phenomenal world or any of its objects absolutely, because the phenomenal world is a world of relativity. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Nagarjuna's Law of the Excluded Middle Author: Willytex Date: Tues, Feb 8 2005 http://tinyurl.com/2p3sod
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: Technically, I didn't say all is one. I said that there is one reality. How can you argue against the existence of reality? Easy. Who is the *perceiver* of reality? The perception of reality is all part of the experience of reality itself. If you're claiming that transcendence is the reality, who is the *perceiver* while you are transcending? If there is one, you aren't transcending. I'm not saying that transcendence, whatever it means to anyone, is the reality. But I'm suggesting that reality necessarily includes the experience of transcending because nothing can be outside of reality which must be all-inclusive. Didn't you, yourself, already say that all things and states of consciousness co-exist? They are co-existing within that larger framework that I am calling reality. As I am using the word, it includes everything in the phenomenological world and everything outside of it, all that exists, everything that doesn't. And again, who is the *perceiver* of this so-called reality? This is a very good and deep question. This question, in its many forms, lies at the heart of the quest for enlightenment, the quest to understand the true nature of reality. Are you claiming that you can perceive all of the things you listed above? Is this a trick question?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
Here we see Richard J. Williams, the War Monger, once again ignoring the million Arabs blown to pieces by a war profiteering murderous evil fascist president who raped America and has driven it to bankruptcy. Richard J. Williams is saying that liberals have no class for booing this hideous malevolent killer who sold weapons of mass destructions to Iraq and encouraged them to use them, and they did -- on 4,000 Kurdish mothers with babies in their arms. If Richard J. Williams were to have a twin brother, Kali Yuga would be twice as evil. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUAsTrl4JI Proof positive that liberals have no class.
[FairfieldLife] Reality...what a concept
Some comedian said that. I forget which one. But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality IS a concept. I'm just not convinced that the concept has...uh... reality *outside* of being a concept. My experience, and the words of a few teachers I respect, has shown me that there are many realities, probably as many as their are points of view. And, to me, UC or BC as defined by Maharishi are Just Two More Points Of View. What individuals in this state of consciousness see is Just What They See, not reality. So for me reality is an empty concept; it doesn't float my boat. It just doesn't have any legs as philosophical concepts go. Others may find the concept fascinating. So it goes. I'm more comfortable with realities. As in one or more for every point of view in the universe. As in Maharishi's Knowledge is structured in consc- iousness. As in Castaneda's A Separate Reality. Reality kinda loses its meaningfulness when you've sat in the desert and been flipped in and out of dozens of states of consciousness in an hour, and in and out of an equal number of the *realities* that go with each of those states of consciousness. In one of those states of consciousness, it's just a normal night out in the desert. You've got yer stars, the sand, the wind, a bunch of humans sitting in a circle watching another human as he stands in the center of the circle. In another of those states of consciousness, the human in the center of the circle steps up off the sand and walks around about three feet off the ground. In another the stars start to move around. In another the human in the center of the circle disappears. In yet another, *you* disappear. Which of these was reality? Which not? I think they were all reality -- from a particular set of points of view and states of consciousness, as seen by individuals who don't exist, at a certain moment in time, which also doesn't exist. :-) The thing that I think Castaneda just nailed in his books is not that each of these separate realities have different sets of rules -- operating systems or laws of nature -- that apply to them. They also require different states of consciousness to be *in* them. You can't fully remember these states of consc- iousness and their attendant realities *after* you're no longer *in* them. You can't even fully *conceive* of what they were from a different state of conscious- ness and point of view and *its* reality. It's just the most frustrating thing in the world. But at the same time, it's a heckuva lot of fun. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it sadistic to enjoy this?
Ed wrote: ...hideous malevolent killer who sold weapons of mass destructions to Iraq and encouraged them to use them, and they did -- on 4,000 Kurdish mothers with babies in their arms. There's no evidence that George W. Bush sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. If you have any evidence, why not post it so we can all read it and make our own decision. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, according to Judy Stein. Richard J. Williams is saying that liberals have no class for booing this hideous malevolent killer who sold weapons of mass destructions to Iraq and encouraged them to use them, and they did -- on 4,000 Kurdish mothers with babies in their arms. So, it has been established that Saddam murdered over 4,000 kurdish mothers with babies in their arms, while you enjoyed bouncing on your butt. Now that's sadistic! From: Judy Stein Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2003-06-25 Subject: Re: Weapons of Mass Destruction found? http://tinyurl.com/2mrsc4 No weapons of mass destruction have been found.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 2:15 PM, endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: The only path that matters is the one you are on. In the midst of this experience of reality that we find ourselves in, we seek to discern value and meaning and purpose, gravitating towards the teachings and practices that seem most relevant to us. In the process of discriminating between what has value to us and what doesn't, consciousness is refined and hones in on that which is Real. Such consciousness could just as easily hone in on a false doctrine or View. But really, it would depend how you define the English word real. From the POV of Tibetan Buddhism, it's not until the Path of Seeing is reached that you can see beyond your own obscurations (which you've carried with you through countless existences) to even know the true nature of things. It's only at that state of evolution that our mental continuum's cessation allows us to experience reality via nonceptutal cognition. Isn't this what I was also saying? We form the deepest intention to see beyond these obscurations and know the true nature of reality, to see directly, via nonceptual cognition. You've stated it very precisely and beautifully. If you feel like it, say more about the Path of Seeing. The Path of Seeing is when you actually stop accumulating karma and residual obscurations are gone to the point where thought projections are no longer in the way of perception. You become an Arya, a Noble One. Emptiness is no longer obscured by the holographic projections of mentation (and their causes). In fact one gains the wherewithals to remove defilements as one pleases.
[FairfieldLife] For Turq
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fqvdV4XFMVw
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. Angela, that's always been part of Richard's game. Due to flooding in the midwest, he was actually spotted recently in Argentina: WillyTex's S. American Adventure
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fqvdV4XFMVw Actually, I kinda liked it. Separate realities. You even abided by gullible fool's rule by posting it under a thread entitled UFC Goons. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Reality...what a concept
Yup, tons of realities. Even a human brain is equipped for many different kinds. Add bird brains and cat brains and brains unknown to us. tons upon tons. The creator of realities, who apparently suffers from ADD and has a low tolerance for boredom, is busy even now creating new ones. --- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some comedian said that. I forget which one. But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality IS a concept. I'm just not convinced that the concept has...uh... reality *outside* of being a concept. My experience, and the words of a few teachers I respect, has shown me that there are many realities, probably as many as their are points of view. And, to me, UC or BC as defined by Maharishi are Just Two More Points Of View. What individuals in this state of consciousness see is Just What They See, not reality. So for me reality is an empty concept; it doesn't float my boat. It just doesn't have any legs as philosophical concepts go. Others may find the concept fascinating. So it goes. I'm more comfortable with realities. As in one or more for every point of view in the universe. As in Maharishi's Knowledge is structured in consc- iousness. As in Castaneda's A Separate Reality. Reality kinda loses its meaningfulness when you've sat in the desert and been flipped in and out of dozens of states of consciousness in an hour, and in and out of an equal number of the *realities* that go with each of those states of consciousness. In one of those states of consciousness, it's just a normal night out in the desert. You've got yer stars, the sand, the wind, a bunch of humans sitting in a circle watching another human as he stands in the center of the circle. In another of those states of consciousness, the human in the center of the circle steps up off the sand and walks around about three feet off the ground. In another the stars start to move around. In another the human in the center of the circle disappears. In yet another, *you* disappear. Which of these was reality? Which not? I think they were all reality -- from a particular set of points of view and states of consciousness, as seen by individuals who don't exist, at a certain moment in time, which also doesn't exist. :-) The thing that I think Castaneda just nailed in his books is not that each of these separate realities have different sets of rules -- operating systems or laws of nature -- that apply to them. They also require different states of consciousness to be *in* them. You can't fully remember these states of consc- iousness and their attendant realities *after* you're no longer *in* them. You can't even fully *conceive* of what they were from a different state of conscious- ness and point of view and *its* reality. It's just the most frustrating thing in the world. But at the same time, it's a heckuva lot of fun. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? I'd be surprised if anybody here *didn't* feel that way. I suspect you're preaching to the choir. But when someone here speaks of the One Reality, as I said earlier, they don't mean one privileged relative reality among many; they're talking about Ultimate Reality, i.e., the reality that encompasses all the others, the reality *of* many realities. (There's also what's called consensus reality, of course, which is the everyday reality most of us operate in most of the time. In a sense, it's privileged because it's largely shared. Often those who live primarily in alternate realities have a bit of difficulty functioning.)
[FairfieldLife] Obama: Losing the Narrative
From Losing the Narrative by Glenn Loury: ...Obama and his followers speak of transcending ideology: no more red states vs. blue states or left wing vs. right -- that's the old way of thinking, it is said. We need to transcend those categories, to move-on from those old arguments, to seek a new direction, to inaugurate a new generation of leadership, etc. etc. Throughout this campaign he has avoided the responsibility -- and he did it again in his `race' speech -- of saying directly and explicitly what (beyond the old ways of Washington politics) are the nature and dimensions of the failure, and how will what has gone so horribly wrong ever be remedied. Instead, he simply calls for change. Obama, an African American from the south side of Chicago (sort of), has become the embodiment of this call. The question is, will the deep structures of American power accept a stealthy revolutionary's ascent to the pinnacle? I doubt it, very seriously. As his life experience and his current political strategy would seem to suggest, he can only succeed by abandoning the critical, skeptical, dissident's voice which is the truest political expression of the lessons learned by black people over the long centuries of being America's 'niggers.' So, anyway, is how I'm seeing things at the moment. Read the whole thing here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/31/losing_the_narrative/ http://tinyurl.com/2kuphy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
Angela Mailander wrote: This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. Vaj wrote: Angela, that's always been part of Richard's game. Due to flooding in the midwest, he was actually spotted recently in Argentina: Texas is in a drought, Moron. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me? I'd be surprised if anybody here *didn't* feel that way. I suspect you're preaching to the choir. As a choir member, I can vouch for that. But when someone here speaks of the One Reality, as I said earlier, they don't mean one privileged relative reality among many; they're talking about Ultimate Reality, i.e., the reality that encompasses all the others, the reality *of* many realities. (There's also what's called consensus reality, of course, which is the everyday reality most of us operate in most of the time. In a sense, it's privileged because it's largely shared. Often those who live primarily in alternate realities have a bit of difficulty functioning.) Or they just go mad. I decided to find the Real for the sake of avoiding total madness. It's touch and go.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gorakshanatha's view of Samadhi
On Mar 31, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: This whole discussion is about semantics--and, as such, it can go on forever without shedding any light anywhere. Vaj wrote: Angela, that's always been part of Richard's game. Due to flooding in the midwest, he was actually spotted recently in Argentina: Texas is in a drought, Moron. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/ Jesus--well then get back to that bridge! It's a wonder any-hew that Bush's aura hadn't already sucked the prana out of the whole region.
[FairfieldLife] Great Skies; for Edg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1oLycq7sC0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Great Skies; for Edg, with love
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1oLycq7sC0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor uns_tressor@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: Next monday on BBC2, a programme about meditation is being broadcast part of which was filmed at MIU http://open2.net/alternativetherapies/meditation.html Oops, just realised I will probably be the only one on here who will be able to watch it... Not so, these days. There are numerous electronic fandagoes that should allow anyone with an Internet connection (probably need broadband). Check out their web page. Uns This is the programme's web page: http://tinyurl.com/34fgwp I think you would need to download the BBC's IPlayer software which is free. There is a time difference of seven hours. Uns. Thanks for doing the research on this Uns, it saved me a job. I'll watch on the TV but as it's got Stephen Fry visiting Fairfield it should be interesting enough for anyone to have a look as the series has been fascinating so far.
[FairfieldLife] To Cardemeister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7l9nKfvokoNR=1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation with Matthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds it amusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breath meditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac. Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap lines. What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac?? I had the same problem, using my Mac. Many suggestions came to my same question. I solved it by keeping sentences short by liberal use of the return key. I don't bother to count the length of lines, but someone suggested keeping each line under 70 spaces. Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
[FairfieldLife] Hear My Train A Coming To Jim - the most generous soul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCQBbgb_Lvo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Just finished watching the program... If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go to the iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you are outside the UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC website into thinking you are in the UK. Look on the web for such a service. Plus the program is only online for the next 7 days. http://tiny.cc/S9msm Synopsis: The presenter (a scientist - physicist) first does buddhist meditation withMatthiew Ricard in Nepal (AKA The Happiest Man Alive). Sitting cross-legged on a small stool; following her breath, days and days of practice etc. Then she (yes - she) looks at all the medical studies - and goes off to Vedic City, as the most pure research she could find is by the TM movement. She's given a tour of the SV houses, meets a nice TM family (the Johnsons) and then watches some flying - and is invited onto the foam to try for herself in the physical sense. Funny - she is laughing and no match for the male TMSP guys who have their flying down pat. But it's interesting how the flying does not shock her - she just finds itamusing. The guy showing her around was a touch creepy, a real TBer I'm sure. She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-over how that's not even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin to have a chat with her. Don't know what she would have made of a fellow physicist - he is very eloquent. She remarks how all the secrecy seems so odd, and baulks at the $2,500 to learn!!! But she say how happy and content everyone looks. No mention of the ME. Then she has a teleconference with a TM scientist in Holland who gives her the standard spiel. Then she goes back to the UK and looks at some of the major reviews of research into TM and heart health. Concludes that TM is a shade better then other techniques as far as the reviews are concerned. Then she moves onto other research on general buddhist breathmeditation etc, as is amazed at the MRI scanning evidence. Cortical thickness is 0.1 to 0.2 mm thicker in people who meditate etc.. Then she talks to some doctors etc. who are doing ground breaking research etc - and coming to conclusions that the TM research established decades ago. It does take decades to change scientific viewpoints. But then some doctor who's working with depressed patients and using mindfulness meditation says how everybody should meditate, and how it helps emotionally in so many ways etc. She's very impressed. In the end she concludes that meditation is amazing, and she seems to now meditate regularly and how it's changed her life and she muses on what would happen if everyone meditated etc. So a good program - but just such a shame that the TMO were bit-players, and came out of it odd to say the least. I've never been in the movement as such - just a TMSP guy for 13 years with a few courses here and there. I feel sad for the TMO and all you folks who hoped it could be so much. But who knows what was MMY was really up to. How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. It was strange to see Vedic City and the Domes etc; plus the SV houses and the Raj. Never been there.
[FairfieldLife] To all of us, part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO4RfVeOyRQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. (Note the implied value judgment, BTW.) It was noted. I was wondering whether or not to take it personally... Naah. We're all in the same boat here relative to Barry.
[FairfieldLife] To all of us, part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oZYqAeIdYk
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Power Of Myth
Hi Turq, I did some research on Ron Teeguarden and Dragon herbs. Sounds really interesting. I contacted his office this afternoon. His consultation fee is quite high. Do you think it's worthwhile? Thanks, Gary --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm suggesting that this focus extends to the myths that we revere, and that we should take some care about which ones we choose to focus on. Here is my myth: I believe that the mind is structured in language, which effectively is saying this cultural phenomenon called myth is part of our physiology. We think in terms of stories. Exactly. We tell them to others and we tell them to our selves, and unfortunately the selves tend to listen. :-) Fortunately we have a pre-frontal lobe that can be put to use for discerning facts from fiction. Everyday we play a cosmic dance of between mythos and logos. Exactly the distinction I've been rapping about lately with regard to tales of power and the *intent* behind them. Richard Burton once did a cool thing. (This is not as total a non-sequitur as it seems...be patient.) A friend attended one of his stage performances of a play for which there were no props -- only a chair onstage -- and no costumes. After the play, the friend said, I loved the part where you made everyone in the audience laugh. Burton said, Oh? Did you like that? Come back tomorrow night and I'll make everyone in the audience cry on the same line. And the friend did. And Burton did. Same tale of power, different intent. Same mythos, different logos. We live myths everyday. We are not subject only to classic myths like the Vedas or Sisyphus. I just want to go on record as saying that I think you're contributing to creating a myth on television, and a very nice one, with a really clean intent. For example I have been plagued with intestinal problems as long as I remember. I have been treated by alternative and conventional doctors. Each offering their mythology about what was happening and how it should be treated. I know the placebo effect is 60% effective in relieving intestinal problems. This means both alternative and conventional medicine can not fully tackle what is wrong with me. In the end I am left with having to objectify this malady as best I can. I write down what I eat or which pill I take and how it relieves symptoms. I keep my eyes open for the next myth that may offer solace. This is Just Another Story, certainly not a myth, but if you haven't tried Chinese tonic herbs yet, since you live in L.A. you might look up the name of Ron Teeguarden. I had dyspepsia for many years, had grown so used to it that I didn't even mention it when I consulted with him about some other issues, and within a few days of taking the tonic herbs he suggested, the dyspepsia went away. As did the other issues I'd been more concerned about. It might help, might not, but I just thought I'd mention it. Buddhism calls this action discernment. Fortunately, meditation is an excellent exercise to strengthen discernment. I would say also that practicing discernment in one's daily life is an excellent exercise to strengthen meditation. We learn that thoughts come and go, they can be held before us for observation. This is an important step to moving in the direction of understanding the interlocking and important motion of mythos and logos. I like that -- the interlocking and important motion of mythos and logos. It's another way of expressing the interaction of karma and free will. It is an action that is not intellectual or intuitive, it certainly does not depend on feelings. But it does require mindfulness, clear centered awareness. And it's fun to boot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. How do you know they wouldn't have taught her? The problems are: 1) the course is 4 days long and she's supposed to make a time commitment to practice regularly at least during the days of instruction; 2) she would need at least a checking session or two to make sure she's got it; 3) the non-disclosure agreement probably puts off ANY reporter; 4) even assuming all of the above wasn't an issue and that they taught her for free, she'd need to learn TM at least 2 weeks prior to filming any part where she discussed her experience with it. Not practical, IMHO. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Reality...what a concept
Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: [...] How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist meditations, and then been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange environment. It would have been great to see what her experience would have been. You would have thought that they would have at least taught her - but no; that's just not what there about. How do you know they wouldn't have taught her? The problems are: 1) the course is 4 days long and she's supposed to make a time commitment to practice regularly at least during the days of instruction; 2) she would need at least a checking session or two to make sure she's got it; 3) the non-disclosure agreement probably puts off ANY reporter; 4) even assuming all of the above wasn't an issue and that they taught her for free, she'd need to learn TM at least 2 weeks prior to filming any part where she discussed her experience with it. Not practical, IMHO. Lawson Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. I don't think that she/the production team would have paid, even if it was practical as such. They weren't into comparing different types of meditation as such - once she had learn't one way, and got some results, that was the end of it it seemed. She never really seemed to be interested in what meditation really was in a deeper sense, plus she seemed to just feel that one type of meditation was the same as another. But possibly this was just a limitation of the show.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. As someone said recently somewhere else, its a lot like ignorance, only with that 'darned' fullness.
[FairfieldLife] 'USA bugged every move of MLK
(CNN) -- FBI wiretaps have given us the most powerful and persuasive source of
all for seeing how utterly selfless Martin Luther King was, as a civil rights
leader, according to a leading civil rights scholar
var CNN_ArticleChanger = new
CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1);
//CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');You
see him being intensely self-critical. King really and truly believed that he
was there to be of service to others. This was not a man with any egomaniacal
joy of being a famous person, or being a leader, said Pulitzer Prize-winning
scholar David Garrow in a recent interview with CNN.
Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of
Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance.
The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism.
But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the
FBI was able to use against him.
The almost fanatical zeal with which the FBI pursued King is disclosed in
tens of thousands of FBI memos from the 1960s.
The FBI paper trail spells out in detail the government agency's concerted
efforts to derail King's efforts on behalf of the civil rights movement.
The FBI's interest in King intensified after the March on Washington in
August 1963, when King delivered his I have a dream speech, which many
historians consider the most important speech of the 20th century. After the
speech, an FBI memo called King the most dangerous and effective Negro leader
in the country.
The bureau convened a meeting of department heads to explore how best to carry
on our investigation [of King] to produce the desired results without
embarrassment to the Bureau, which included a complete analysis of the
avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.
The FBI began secretly tracking King's flights and watching his associates.
In July 1963, a month before the March on Washington, FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover filed a request with Attorney General Robert Kennedy to tap King's and
his associates' phones and to bug their homes and offices.
In September, Kennedy consented to the technical surveillance. Kennedy gave
the FBI permission to break into King's office and home to install the bugs, as
long as agents recognized the delicacy of this particular matter and didn't
get caught installing them. Kennedy added a proviso -- he wanted to be
personally informed of any pertinent information.
While King did have associates who had been members of the Communist Party,
by all accounts they severed those ties when they started working in the civil
rights movement. What's more, the FBI bugs never picked up evidence that King
himself was a Communist, or was interested in toeing the party line.
But the long list of bugs in his hotel rooms picked up just enough about
King's love life.
A decision in a 1977 court case brought by Bernard Lee, one of King's
associates, sealed the transcripts from those wiretaps until 2027. But King's
associates confirm there were at least two cases in which FBI surveillance
caught King in compromising circumstances.
The first incident involved King at a party at the Willard Hotel in
Washington. The FBI recorded the party and captured the sounds of a sexual
encounter in the room afterwards. The second incident occurred during King's
stay in a hotel in Los Angeles, California. There, agents heard another drunken
gathering in which King told an off-color joke about the recently assassinated
President John F. Kennedy. Hoover sent transcripts and excerpts of those
recordings to the White House and to the attorney general.
Hoover's contempt for King's private behavior is clear in the memos he kept
in his personal files. His scrawl across the bottom of positive news stories
about King's success dripped with loathing.
On a story about King receiving the St. Francis peace medal from the Catholic
Church, he wrote this is disgusting. On the story King, Pope to Talk on
Race, he scribbled astounding. On a story about King's meeting with the
pope, I am amazed that the Pope gave an audience to such a degenerate. On a
story about King being the heavy favorite to win the Nobel Prize, he wrote
King could well qualify for the 'top alley cat' prize!
When King learned he would be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964,
the FBI decided to take its harassment of King one step further, sending him an
insulting and threatening note anonymously. A draft was found in the FBI files
years later. In it the FBI wrote, You are a colossal fraud and an evil,
vicious one at that. The letter went on to say, The American public ... will
know you for what you are -- an evil, abnormal beast, and Satan could not do
more.
The letter's threat was ominous, if not specific: King
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some comedian said that. I forget which one. But, as far as I can tell, he nailed it. Reality IS a concept. 1980 comedy album by Robin Williams: http://tinyurl.com/2gopuu I'm just not convinced that the concept has...uh... reality *outside* of being a concept. My experience, and the words of a few teachers I respect, has shown me that there are many realities, probably as many as their are points of view. And, to me, UC or BC as defined by Maharishi are Just Two More Points Of View. What individuals in this state of consciousness see is Just What They See, not reality. So for me reality is an empty concept; it doesn't float my boat. It just doesn't have any legs as philosophical concepts go. Others may find the concept fascinating. So it goes. I'm more comfortable with realities. As in one or more for every point of view in the universe. As in Maharishi's Knowledge is structured in consc- iousness. As in Castaneda's A Separate Reality. Reality kinda loses its meaningfulness when you've sat in the desert and been flipped in and out of dozens of states of consciousness in an hour, and in and out of an equal number of the *realities* that go with each of those states of consciousness. In one of those states of consciousness, it's just a normal night out in the desert. You've got yer stars, the sand, the wind, a bunch of humans sitting in a circle watching another human as he stands in the center of the circle. In another of those states of consciousness, the human in the center of the circle steps up off the sand and walks around about three feet off the ground. In another the stars start to move around. In another the human in the center of the circle disappears. In yet another, *you* disappear. Which of these was reality? Which not? I think they were all reality -- from a particular set of points of view and states of consciousness, as seen by individuals who don't exist, at a certain moment in time, which also doesn't exist. :-) The thing that I think Castaneda just nailed in his books is not that each of these separate realities have different sets of rules -- operating systems or laws of nature -- that apply to them. They also require different states of consciousness to be *in* them. You can't fully remember these states of consc- iousness and their attendant realities *after* you're no longer *in* them. You can't even fully *conceive* of what they were from a different state of conscious- ness and point of view and *its* reality. It's just the most frustrating thing in the world. But at the same time, it's a heckuva lot of fun. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reality seems to be a concept that people whose realities don't change very quickly are interested in. They stay in pretty much the same state of consciousness for long periods of time. When reality changes on you more quickly -- say, dozens of times in an hour -- you lose your fascination for the concept. Or at least I did. I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. Anybody else out there feel that way, or is it just me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'USA bugged every move of MLK
Yes, Robert, RFK was behind the bugging.
I seem to recall that both myself and willytex pointed this out to
you, I think it was, in the past year when you got all wet praising
Bobby Kennedy.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(CNN) -- FBI wiretaps have given us the most powerful and
persuasive source of all for seeing how utterly selfless Martin
Luther King was, as a civil rights leader, according to a leading
civil rights scholar
var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger
('cnnImgChngr','/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/imgChng/p1-
0.init.exclude.html',1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load
('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');You see him being
intensely self-critical. King really and truly believed that he was
there to be of service to others. This was not a man with any
egomaniacal joy of being a famous person, or being a leader, said
Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar David Garrow in a recent interview
with CNN.
Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the
influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under
constant surveillance.
The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about
communism.
But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life --
details the FBI was able to use against him.
The almost fanatical zeal with which the FBI pursued King is
disclosed in tens of thousands of FBI memos from the 1960s.
The FBI paper trail spells out in detail the government agency's
concerted efforts to derail King's efforts on behalf of the civil
rights movement.
The FBI's interest in King intensified after the March on
Washington in August 1963, when King delivered his I have a dream
speech, which many historians consider the most important speech of
the 20th century. After the speech, an FBI memo called King the most
dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.
The bureau convened a meeting of department heads to explore how
best to carry on our investigation [of King] to produce the desired
results without embarrassment to the Bureau, which included a
complete analysis of the avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing
King as an effective Negro leader.
The FBI began secretly tracking King's flights and watching his
associates. In July 1963, a month before the March on Washington, FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover filed a request with Attorney General Robert
Kennedy to tap King's and his associates' phones and to bug their
homes and offices.
In September, Kennedy consented to the technical surveillance.
Kennedy gave the FBI permission to break into King's office and home
to install the bugs, as long as agents recognized the delicacy of
this particular matter and didn't get caught installing them.
Kennedy added a proviso -- he wanted to be personally informed of any
pertinent information.
While King did have associates who had been members of the
Communist Party, by all accounts they severed those ties when they
started working in the civil rights movement. What's more, the FBI
bugs never picked up evidence that King himself was a Communist, or
was interested in toeing the party line.
But the long list of bugs in his hotel rooms picked up just
enough about King's love life.
A decision in a 1977 court case brought by Bernard Lee, one of
King's associates, sealed the transcripts from those wiretaps until
2027. But King's associates confirm there were at least two cases in
which FBI surveillance caught King in compromising circumstances.
The first incident involved King at a party at the Willard Hotel
in Washington. The FBI recorded the party and captured the sounds of
a sexual encounter in the room afterwards. The second incident
occurred during King's stay in a hotel in Los Angeles, California.
There, agents heard another drunken gathering in which King told an
off-color joke about the recently assassinated President John F.
Kennedy. Hoover sent transcripts and excerpts of those recordings to
the White House and to the attorney general.
Hoover's contempt for King's private behavior is clear in the
memos he kept in his personal files. His scrawl across the bottom of
positive news stories about King's success dripped with loathing.
On a story about King receiving the St. Francis peace medal from
the Catholic Church, he wrote this is disgusting. On the
story King, Pope to Talk on Race, he scribbled astounding. On a
story about King's meeting with the pope, I am amazed that the Pope
gave an audience to such a degenerate. On a story about King being
the heavy favorite to win the Nobel Prize, he wrote King could well
qualify for the 'top alley cat' prize!
When King learned he would be the recipient of the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1964, the FBI decided to take its harassment of King one
step further, sending him an insulting and threatening note
anonymously. A draft was found in the
[FairfieldLife] Fitna
http://tinyurl.com/2rfy6c
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. If you attend the David Lynch Weekend, you can get a scholarship for the $2500 to learn TM. I don't think that she/the production team would have paid, even if it was practical as such. They weren't into comparing different types of meditation as such - once she had learn't one way, and got some results, that was the end of it it seemed. See above. David Lynch might not be willing to foot the bill, but *someone* probably would be willing. She never really seemed to be interested in what meditation really was in a deeper sense, plus she seemed to just feel that one type of meditation was the same as another. But possibly this was just a limitation of the show. Or the show is a reflection of her own attitude. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
I do this for a living. I make inanimate objects have emotions and appear as if they are sentient beings. Thats 90% of a film editor's work. Like many attempts to create the illusion of a human the CGI girl will never have a soul. That is not the way to create the artifice of a human. What works best for most artists is to give the figure a story. CGI girl does not have a story. Creepy. Bad art. Yech! I don't have a soul either. I don't know what a soul is. Its another one of those iron age terms ignorant people used. In those days people thought the brain was an organ designed to cool the blood. The idea of a soul compensated for lack of knowledge. I don't have a soul but I do have a story, and thats one of the things that makes me human. s. Mythos and Logos --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cubo.cc/ Move your mouse around to see her move. This was created by CGI -- not a real girl. Here's the question: what's missing that is needed to make the creepiness go away? A soul? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong. It's considered to be unethical by major newspapers to accept freebies or discounts, because this might bias the reporter's neutral point of view. The NYT makes reporters pay their own way (which is reimbursed by the newspaper): http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#paying They may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by their newsroom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Good synopsis and points. Actually the TM part seemed rather insubstantial and the general impression came across that all the scientific claims for TM (for cardiovascular effects, for instance) did not amount to much when properly reviewed. The following piece from BBC Health News is all about the programme and there is not even a mention of TM Scientists probe meditation secrets By Naomi Law Scientists are beginning to uncover evidence that meditation has a tangible effect on the brain. Sceptics argue that it is not a practical way to try to deal with the stresses of modern life. But the long years when adherents were unable to point to hard science to support their belief in the technique may finally be coming to an end. When Carol Cattley's husband died it triggered a relapse of the depression which had not plagued her since she was a teenager. I instantly felt as if I wanted to die, she said. I couldn't think of what else to do. Carol sought medical help and managed to control her depression with a combination of medication and a psychological treatment called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. However, she believes that a new, increasingly popular course called Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) - which primarily consists of meditation - brought about her full recovery. It is currently available in every county across the UK, and can be prescribed on the NHS. One of the pioneers of MBCT is Professor Mark Williams, from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Oxford. He helps to lead group courses which take place over a period of eight weeks. He describes the approach as 80% meditation, 20% cognitive therapy. New perspective He said: It teaches a way of looking at problems, observing them clearly but not necessarily trying to fix them or solve them. It suggests to people that they begin to see all their thoughts as just thoughts, whether they are positive, negative or neutral. MBCT is recommended for people who are not currently depressed, but who have had three or more bouts of depression in their lives. Trials suggest that the course reduces the likelihood of another attack of depression by over 50%. Professor Williams believes that more research is still needed. He said: It is becoming enormously popular quite quickly and in many ways we now need to collect the evidence to check that it really is being effective. However, in the meantime, meditation is being taken seriously as a means of tackling difficult and very modern challenges. Scientists are beginning to investigate how else meditation could be used, particularly for those at risk of suicide and people struggling with the effects of substance abuse. What is meditation? Meditation is difficult to define because it has so many different forms. By meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you can change your brain in ways that support that Dr Richard Davidson Broadly, it can be described as a mental practice in which you focus your attention on a particular subject or object. It has historically been associated with religion, but it can also be secular, and exactly what you focus your attention on is largely a matter of personal choice. It may be a mantra (repeated word or phrase), breathing patterns, or simply an awareness of being alive. Some of the more common forms of meditative practices include Buddhist Meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, and Zen Meditation. The claims made for meditation range from increasing immunity, improving asthma and increasing fertility through to reducing the effects of aging. Limited research Research into the health claims made for meditation has limitations and few conclusions can be reached, partly because meditation is rarely isolated - it is often practised alongside other lifestyle changes such as diet, or exercise, or as part of group therapy. So should we dismiss it as quackery? Studies from the field of neuroscience suggest not. It is a new area of research, but indications are intriguing and suggest that meditation may have a measurable impact on the brain. In Boston, Massachusetts, Dr Sara Lazar has used a technique called MRI scanning to analyse the brains of people who have been meditating for several years. She compared the brains of these experienced practitioners with people who had never meditated and found that there were differences in the thickness of certain areas of the brain's cortex, including areas involved in the processing of emotion. She is continuing research, but she believes that meditation had caused the brain to change physical shape. Buddhist monks In Madison, Wisconsin, Dr Richard Davidson has been carrying out studies on Buddhist monks for several years. His personal belief is that by meditating, you can become happier, you can concentrate more effectively and you
