[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 But my point with empathy is what Curtis said so eloquently in 
 other posts: MMY's purported desire to rid the world of suffering 
 says nothing about his empathy.  You know empathy by how someone 
 treats individuals.  Whether they feel another's suffering.  

And whether they go out of their way to actively
*create* suffering in others. To wit, the claim
recently by one poster that she's highly empathetic,
balanced against her often-stated desire to make 
other posters feel bad. She literally *revels* in
the supposed pain and anguish she causes her debate 
opponents to feel. If she were really empathetic, 
wouldn't making them feel bad make *her* feel bad 
as well?

 Curtis's direct experience is consistent with what others have said 
 about MMY. It is hard to think MMY as anything but narcissistic.

And as someone who promoted narcissism in his 
followers more often than he promoted enlight-
enment. Who consistently *gets the credit* for
all of the global good news reported? The
all-important butt-bouncers whose awesome woo-
woo rays have created the good news, that's who.

I think that Fairfield Life provides an amazingly
effective bullshit meter that is useful when
trying to figure out which of the myths that
surround enlightenment and purported higher 
states of consciousness are useful or beneficial
and which are bullshit, with no or little value.

I mean, when you have someone who claims to be
enlightened indulging in gay slurs against some-
one whose only sin (well, not *only* sin :-))
was to ask him to explain how he knows how 
heaven is decorated, either enlightenment is
not all it's been cracked up to be, or it's
time to call bullshit. When you have someone
who claims to be highly empathetic insinuating
that someone who challenges her holy word is on
drugs, that may also be an indicator that there
is a bovine turd floating in her empathetic
punchbowl.

One of my teachers once said (and should have
listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
people say, but watch what they DO.

Anyone can claim anything they want about their
supposed state of consciousness, or their supposed
level of empathy. But watch what they DO. That's
where the bullshit meter is useful.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good analysis of Hillary's campaign

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ 
 wrote:
 
  She hustled and jumped  
  and slogged and cried and ate and drank and didn't sleep and 
  put up with her nutty underminer of a husband for president. 
 
 [snip]
 
 Yeah, that nutty underminer of a husband was the SOLE reason she 
 ever became a senator and, of course, a presidential candidate.
 
 I am amused that people like Sal and Judy hold up Hillary Clinton as 
 their ideal for a female president.  Why, she is DEFINED by who her 
 husband is!  This is the OPPOSITE of feminism, isn't it?
 
 It reminds me of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation...MELINDA  
 What the fuck did SHE do to get her name on that foundation and to 
 appear on the cover of Time Magazine with Bono and her husband?  It 
 was Bill who made all the billions, not her.  She just sat around 
 eating bon-bons, spread her legs, had two kids with him, and sits 
 on his board.  Big deal.

With all due deference to Bill's billions (that is,
none whatsoever), I think it is worth looking at
his reputation as a human being before Melinda and
after Melinda.

Before, he was well known for his cutthroat and 
unethical (and often downright illegal) business
tactics and for hoarding his wealth. He had ZERO
compatriots in the computer industry who actually
admired him as a human being. Most of them had been
fucked over by him stealing their code or trying
actively to force them out of business to reduce
the number of competitors to the Microsoft monolith.

After Melinda, Bill has actually shown some indi-
cations of becoming an actual human being. I don't
know Melinda at all, but her effect on a known 
asshole is obvious. The foundation should be called
the Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill would never in
a million...uh, make that billion...years have 
thought of it himself.

[FairfieldLife] Over the limit? (was Re: What Voters Saw Tuesday Night)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Someone asked: Suggestion: When Bhairitu posts his counts, 
  perhaps he could include a table of U.S. time zones indicating 
  what time the count was made in each zone. Maybe include 
  applicable time zones for regular posters not in the U.S. (UK, 
  Spain, others?). That shouldn't be hard for him to program so 
  it's automatic each time.
 
 Or, people for whom makingnbsp;50 posts per week is such a 
 big issue could simply get a life.

Well said. There wouldn't be posting limits
at all if some didn't feel they had the right
to make 37 posts a day. What would that be, if
allowed all week? 259 posts. Multiply that by
three (the number of posters who would probably
still be posting that much if not for the limits),
and you have 777 posts per week, 627 more than
what we have to wade through with hip boots
with the limits in place.

This is the *second* time that Judy has claimed
to have been misled by the Yahoo Search engine
when she went over the posting limit. This time
was only a few hours after she *herself* had
explained why she started posting again this
week earlier than midnight Fairfield time.

I say the same thing this time that I said last
time. If she's willing to admit that she's a
total fuckin' idiot who is unaware of time zones
and who can't count to 50, let her post again next
week. If she still wants to maintain that air
of I'm smart, and you're all RELY RLY
STOOPID, let her be smart all by herself
next week.

[FairfieldLife] What would FFL be without its most strident voices?

[TurquoiseB]

Looks to me as if for the next 12 days we have a
chance to find out.

Judy, in a fit of being (dare I say it?) REAL
REAL STPID, has bounced herself off 
the forum next week. Lawson is probably still out
next week as well. Shemp has been reserved in his
posts and has contributed some interesting and
valuable insights, so he hasn't been an issue in
recent days. Everybody already ignores most of 
what Nabby and Willytex and Off say anyway. And 
Jim? Well, he's already established in the past 
that the enlightened can't count as high as 50, 
and if he keeps up his gay-baiting campaign, 
he'll be out next week as well.

So who does that leave? Well, it leaves folks who
occasionally complain (and with some justification)
that FFL is too confrontational and argumentative
and in-your-face for them to participate in fully,
or comfortably.

Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. If there
are subjects you've always wanted to introduce but
were afraid to because you knew they'd be turned
into arguments within two replies, now's your oppor-
tunity to give voice (or the sound of keyboard
clicking) to them. Those who are already civil and
restrained, like Curtis and Hugo and Marek and
Ruth and Rick, will probably continue to respond 
the same way. Even inveterate assholes like myself
might decide to lay low for this blessed period of
time and allow this spiritual forum to actually be
spiritual for a while. Might. I'm not promising
anything, but I'll try.

So what's out there to discuss that could be better
discussed without someone trying their best to turn
the discussions into arguments?

And what's out there that doesn't *deserve* to be
discussed that much during these next 12 days? Like
has-been Hillary Clinton, or the other subjects 
that people have used to pull Judy's puppet strings
and make her Just Go Away? Well, she's away. There
is no *need* to post things for her to compulsively
react to for the next 12 days. There is no need to 
mention her or her name or any of the others' names 
as well. We could give pulling their strings as much 
of a rest as their absence will give us.

Or, it could be business as usual. Your call.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
 person, and remain 
  alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
 materially based stuff 
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
 complete waste of 
  time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
 and foolish-- just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 
 --
 
 Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
 unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
 Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
 would you be able to save him?

Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
possible.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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]
 
 
 



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] What would FFL be without its most strident voices?

[WLeed3]

It with out these voices B very nice to read  share. perhaps more  knowledge 
would be found here  not so much trivial as ones openions on so  many 
subjects. 
 
Very nice to see  now read  re - read 2 chapters of the Gita, 
 
THANKS for that posting
 
 
In a message dated 6/9/2008 5:43:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Looks to  me as if for the next 12 days we have a
chance to find out.

Judy, in  a fit of being (dare I say it?) REAL
REAL STPID, has  bounced herself off 
the forum next week. Lawson is probably still  out
next week as well. Shemp has been reserved in his
posts and has  contributed some interesting and
valuable insights, so he hasn't been an  issue in
recent days. Everybody already ignores most of 
what Nabby and  Willytex and Off say anyway. And 
Jim? Well, he's already established in  the past 
that the enlightened can't count as high as 50, 
and if he  keeps up his gay-baiting campaign, 
he'll be out next week as  well.

So who does that leave? Well, it leaves folks who
occasionally  complain (and with some justification)
that FFL is too confrontational and  argumentative
and in-your-face for them to participate in fully,
or  comfortably.

Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. If there
are  subjects you've always wanted to introduce but
were afraid to because you  knew they'd be turned
into arguments within two replies, now's your  oppor-
tunity to give voice (or the sound of keyboard
clicking) to them.  Those who are already civil and
restrained, like Curtis and Hugo and Marek  and
Ruth and Rick, will probably continue to respond 
the same way. Even  inveterate assholes like myself
might decide to lay low for this blessed  period of
time and allow this spiritual forum to actually be
spiritual  for a while. Might. I'm not promising
anything, but I'll try.

So  what's out there to discuss that could be better
discussed without someone  trying their best to turn
the discussions into arguments?

And what's  out there that doesn't *deserve* to be
discussed that much during these  next 12 days? Like
has-been Hillary Clinton, or the other subjects 
that  people have used to pull Judy's puppet strings
and make her Just Go Away?  Well, she's away. There
is no *need* to post things for her to  compulsively
react to for the next 12 days. There is no need to 
mention  her or her name or any of the others' names 
as well. We could give pulling  their strings as much 
of a rest as their absence will give us.

Or,  it could be business as usual. Your  call.






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








**Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch Cooking with 
Tyler Florence on AOL Food.  
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?NCID=aolfod000302)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gay Marriage In California

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To All:
 
 The vedic scriptures allow marriage to a tree...

Gives whole new meaning to the term sporting wood.
http://users.lmi.net/sonyarap/arborerecta/arborimages/mantree.jpeg

 ..., a clay pot, and even allow marriage 
 by abduction, as Krishna did.  However, the scriptures 
 do not recognize any marriages between human couples of the same 
 sex.  The rationale behind these injunctions is that marriage is 
 for the procreation of children.

Yup, you're sure gonna procreate a flock of 
young'uns by marrying a tree or a clay pot. :-)

 There's a story in Shrimad Bhagavatam, also, which states that 
 Indra, the king of the demigods and the senses, have been known 
 to put on a ruse as a guru and rishi to confuse the people in 
 the world. He does this to make sure that human beings do not 
 get far advanced in their understanding of reality and to ensure 
 his power as the king of the demigods.  Thus, we see many false 
 prophets and wise men who proclaim to have the path to Reality.
 
 In this regard, it is possible that the California judges who 
 allowed gay marriages in the state may have been influenced by 
 the subtle reasonings of Indra, the king of the senses.

Ok, since the subject has come up lately, 
what IS it with homophobia in human beings? 
And with their tendency to justify that 
homophobia with their scriptures?

I mean, what is the difference between some
guy in our time who is terrified that one day 
he'll spring a woodie in the locker room while 
eyeing his tennis partner's bum, and the
authors of the so-called scriptures, who
were probably similarly terrified of the same 
thing happening to them as they bathed with 
other devotees in the Ganges?

Gay marriage REALLY seems to push the homo-
phobes' buttons. Me, I'm kinda for it. My ex-
girlfriend had a relative who was gay, who died 
last year. He had been effectively married to 
his partner for OVER 35 YEARS! They were both 
bankers and pillars of their community and 
respected and loved by one and all, straight 
or gay. And they were clearly *in love*, enough 
to stay with each other through thick and thin
for longer than most of the people here have
been meditating. 

How many straight marriages do you know of 
that have lasted that long? Be honest now.

And yet the homophobes point to their Bibles
and their scriptures and make grunting noises
about how God -- the *same* God that they often
define as God is love -- hates gays, and hates
gay marriage even more.

WTF?

Who ARE these terrified little pissants that
they presume to tell others that they aren't
allowed to commit their lives to another person,
just because that person has the same convex
or concave configuration that they do?

John shoots *himself* in his homophobic foot
above by saying that the very scriptures he
cites as authorities against gay marriage
allow marriage to trees and clay pots. Presum-
ably John would have *no problem* with a guy
taking his clay pot wife out to dinner, or
with a guy humping his oaken wife in a public
park. After all, the scriptures say it's Ok, 
so it IS Ok.

I think it's appropriate to cite a few quotes
by that great bugger Oscar Wilde on the sub-
ject of love, marriage, and other such follies.
He was the master of the epigram and the devas-
tating one-liner, and I suspect that his...uh...
quill is still as sharp today when it comes to
puncturing the pompous as it was when he was
alive:

A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite, and a woman 
who moralises is invariably plain.

Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people 
we personally dislike.

Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account 
for the curious attractiveness of others.

As a wicked man I am a complete failure. Why, there are 
lots of people who say I have never really done anything 
wrong in the whole course of my life. Of course they only 
say it behind my back.

London is full of women who trust their husbands. One can 
always recognise them. They look so thoroughly unhappy.

It is well for his peace that the saint goes to his 
martyrdom. He is spared the sight of the horror of his 
harvest.

The only difference between the saint and the sinner is 
that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.

It is he who has broken the bond of marriage - not I. I only 
break its bondage.

What a fuss people make about fidelity! Why, even in love 
it is purely a question for physiology. It has nothing to 
do with our own will. Young men want to be faithful, and 
are not; old men want to be faithless, and cannot: that is 
all one can say.

The amount of women in London who flirt with their own 
husbands is perfectly scandalous. It looks so bad. It is 
simply washing one's clean linen in public.

When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving one's 
self, and one always ends by deceiving others. That is what 
the world calls a romance.

There's nothing in the world like the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] What would FFL be without its most strident voices?

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Looks to me as if for the next 12 days we have a
chance to find out.

Judy, in a fit of being (dare I say it?) REAL
REAL STPID, has bounced herself off
the forum next week. Lawson is probably still out
next week as well. Shemp has been reserved in his
posts and has contributed some interesting and
valuable insights, so he hasn't been an issue in
recent days. Everybody already ignores most of
what Nabby and Willytex and Off say anyway. And
Jim? Well, he's already established in the past
that the enlightened can't count as high as 50,
and if he keeps up his gay-baiting campaign,
he'll be out next week as well.

So who does that leave? Well, it leaves folks who
occasionally complain (and with some justification)
that FFL is too confrontational and argumentative
and in-your-face for them to participate in fully,
or comfortably.

Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. If there
are subjects you've always wanted to introduce but
were afraid to because you knew they'd be turned
into arguments within two replies, now's your oppor-
tunity to give voice (or the sound of keyboard
clicking) to them. Those who are already civil and
restrained, like Curtis and Hugo and Marek and
Ruth and Rick, will probably continue to respond
the same way. Even inveterate assholes like myself
might decide to lay low for this blessed period of
time and allow this spiritual forum to actually be
spiritual for a while. Might. I'm not promising
anything, but I'll try.

So what's out there to discuss that could be better
discussed without someone trying their best to turn
the discussions into arguments?

And what's out there that doesn't *deserve* to be
discussed that much during these next 12 days? Like
has-been Hillary Clinton, or the other subjects
that people have used to pull Judy's puppet strings
and make her Just Go Away? Well, she's away. There
is no *need* to post things for her to compulsively
react to for the next 12 days. There is no need to
mention her or her name or any of the others' names
as well. We could give pulling their strings as much
of a rest as their absence will give us.

Or, it could be business as usual. Your call.


What would likely happen if certain posters were to lose their  
posting rights.


Scene: Paramus YWCA

Former Poster: Is this the YWCA? yes, oh good. I got a free trial  
membership from an email list I'm on. They all pitched in.


YWCA Person: Oh, how nice.

Former Poster: I noticed your name has the word 'Christian' in it.  
Did you know according to the Wikipedia, Jesus doesn't fit criteria  
for the messiah?


YWCA Person: The wika what? No...uh...we didn't know that. What an  
insulting thing to say!


Former Poster: Liar! How could you not know?

YWCA Person: I beg your pardon...

Former Poster: Don't hedge with me I won't stand for it!

YWCA Person: You don't have to get so upset. Maybe the YWCA is not  
for you?


Former Poster: I'm not getting upset I'M UNSTRESSING! I'm evolving!  
How dare you imply otherwise!


YWCA Person: I see.

[Overhead announcement: Security to front lobby. Security to front  
lobby]


Former Poster: You don't seem to offer any evolutionary programs,  
certainly nothing Vedic.


YWCA Person:  I'm sorry, we cannot have constant disruptions like  
this. This is the third time this week. Security, could you please  
escort this lady to the door. The van for Bellevue is waiting. Thanks.


Former Poster: [screams fading] you can't even find a good place  
to 'dye the cloth' any more...I just wanted some place to alternate  
by deet rest with activity...what do you mean I was threatening  
others?...I'm emitting coherent alpha waves of peace!!!...well  
it's mainly when I fly...haven't you read the scientific  
evidence!?... [fade]


[sound of van door closing]

A van, labelled Bellevue Hospital drives away rapidly.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 --- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
  sandiego108@ wrote:
   
   no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
  person, and remain 
   alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
  materially based stuff 
   like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
  complete waste of 
   time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
  and foolish-- just 
   a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
  
  
  --
  
  Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
  unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
  Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
  would you be able to save him?
 
 Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
 possible.
 
---


Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys discussing his 
experiences 
of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good fortune of 
commonsense and 
medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I ask; from his 
level of 
development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
 

--

[FairfieldLife] Over the limit? (was Re: What Voters Saw Tuesday Night)

[Richard J. Williams]

Bhairitu wrote:
 There are just a few who get carried away 
 (obsessive-compulsive) that they over post. 

Oh, great, now the official 'counter' is the 
official FFL psychologist!

 I agree with Gullible in they probably need 
 to get a life.

And our Pastor as well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[Richard J. Williams]

Curtis wrote:
 It is the mixture of bliss and suffering that 
 defines what I consider life to be. 

But, in a previous post you denied any suffering,
when you learned TM or now. So, maybe you are
enlightenened - you feel no suffering - you don't 
even have any empathy to feel the suffering of 
others. So, by you own definition, you're only
experiencing a part of life.

 And each polarity has its different gifts to 
 make our life richer. 

Has it been established that human existence is
a 'polarity'? And if so, how would suffering make
our life 'richer'? 

 Blanket statements like life is suffering or 
 life is bliss seem so childish to me.

But you just made your own metaphysical claim, 
that life was a 'polarity' - that not only 
sounds childish, but ignorant to a non-dualist.

 I think holy guys have gotten a free ride with 
 such pronouncements.  But on the other hand I 
 have not given Buddha much of a chance, I admit.

You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you post
your messages.

 Maharishi on the other hand got all the chance 
 to make his case that anyone should require, 
 from me.

This is your chance to explain why you don't have
empathy for the suffering of others.

The point is, Curtis, that if you were not 
suffering, there would be no reason to want to 
practice TM and become a TM teacher. Suffering 
could just be a subtle aspect to your general 
feeling of needing something to make your life 
seem fulfilled. 

There are lots of other ways to learn to relax, 
as you pointed out. The process of becoming a TM 
teacher, in itself, probably entails a certain 
amount of suffering.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Gay Marriage In California

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 8, 2008, at 11:29 PM, John wrote:



The vedic scriptures allow marriage to a tree, a clay pot, and even
allow marriage by abduction, as Krishna did.  However, the scriptures
do not recognize any marriages between human couples of the same
sex.  The rationale behind these injunctions is that marriage is for
the procreation of children.


And you can procreate with a clay pot or a tree?
Wow, no wonder they wanted to keep this from getting out.


There's a story in Shrimad Bhagavatam, also, which states that Indra,
the king of the demigods and the senses, have been known to put on a
ruse as a guru and rishi to confuse the people in the world.  He does
this to make sure that human beings do not get far advanced in their
understanding of reality and to ensure his power as the king of the
demigods.  Thus, we see many false prophets and wise men who proclaim
to have the path to Reality.

In this regard, it is possible that the California judges who allowed
gay marriages in the state may have been influenced by the subtle
reasonings of Indra, the king of the senses.


They also may have been influenced by the subtle reasonings of basic
fairness and live-and-let-liveness.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[Richard J. Williams]

  maybe the Marshy thought you sucked as a TM 
  teacher and sucked even more as a manager.
 
 Trollish and argumentative.  Are you working 
 on me so that I will ignore your posts as most 
 others do?  

Well, it's obvious to almost everyone that you
TM teachers failed - you failed at your stated
goals. Almost none of the projects you supposedly
worked on suceeeded. So, I wouldn't blame the
Marshy for kicking you out. In private business,
you would have been fired years ago, due to a 
failure in management. But it's nothing to be
defensive about - not very many people succeed 
at being spiritual teachers, especially when 
their goal is to 'spiritually regenerate' the 
entire world. Unless you are some kind of saint
or guru, you are surely going to fail big time.
Is that what is really bothering you?
 
 Why are you acting like such a dick?
 
Because you are making TMO status claims and 
trying to make us think that you were close to 
the Marshy? That you were trying to make me feel
inferior because you once sat in the same hotel
lobby with the Marshy?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[Richard J. Williams]

  So, you worked for the Marshy, selling
  mantras, and sending the money to the 
  Marshy's relatives over in India, but
  you never even got to walk into his room?
 
boo wrote:
 So when you were in the room with him did 
 you ask about sending money to the relatives 
 in india...

I did, and I don't have a problem with Marshy
sending money to his relatives in India - 
that's how he showed that he had empathy with 
his family.

 did you ask about selling mantras and promising 
 enlightenment in a few years?

I did, and the Marshy said he never promised
anything to anyone. I don't have a problem with
the Marshy charging for instruction.  

But it all depends on what you mean by 'room'.
Do you mean Marshy's hotel room, bedroom, or his 
bath room? 

 Why not?
 
 Shouldn't someone who was so close to mmy 
 like you been better able to see through all 
 the bs than someone who wasn't?

Yes, I saw through all the 'bs' better than
almost everyone. I think I know the Marshy
better than almost anyone on the planet.

 But somehow you're stuck on criticizing all 
 tm teachers...

No, not all TM teachers, just the ignorant 
ones. 

[snip]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[Richard J. Williams]

Curtis wrote:
 It is narcissism that is a more comprehensive 
 descriptive word for Maharishi's world than 
 any other I can think of.  

So, you worked for the Marshy, who was a narcissist,
and you two were close. For how long did you work 
for the Marshy to learn how to be a narcissist? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Peter]

--- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  --- mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 sandiego108
   sandiego108@ wrote:

no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
 dead
   person, and remain 
alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
   materially based stuff 
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like
 a
   complete waste of 
time. Compared to normal life, it seems
 ludicrous
   and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
   
   
   --
   
   Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me -
 an
   unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
   Might I ask; if your young son was dying of
 cancer,
   would you be able to save him?
  
  Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical
 care
  possible.
  
 ---
 
 
 Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr.
 Sandiego enjoys discussing his experiences 
 of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to
 the good fortune of commonsense and 
 medical coverage, his magical power could heal the
 sick. And so I ask; from his level of 
 development could he save his son using mystical
 power alone?

You already know the answer to that.




 
  
 
 --
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
   I think this vibration stuff is unsupported and is
   misleading those who are in pain and suffering.  Not
   very empathetic to me.
 
  As you just noted in another post, whether the stuff
  *works* or not is irrelevant to the empathy issue. If
  MMY *believed* it worked, that would be enough to
  demonstrate empathy.
 
 Well, it is relevant if there is no evidence that it works and 
there is
 none for this vibration technology.  And does the movement spend 
time
 researching vibration technology?  Not to my knowledge.  Arguably, 
it
 could be fraud.  To be generous, it is misleading.

And to be honest, it is Bullshit. And MMY would have known it,
it's another way of getting cash out of the true believers. Like 
yagyas for instance, another technology that the TMO won't
be doing research into. Ever.

You could easily lump it all into Vedic Placebo Therapy, says it
all about MMYs empathy that he had the nerve to try and get away
with it.
 
 But my point with empathy is what Curtis said so eloquently in other
 posts: MMY's  purported desire to rid the world of suffering says
 nothing about his empathy.  You know empathy by how someone treats
 individuals.  Whether they feel another's suffering.  Curtis's 
direct
 experience is consistent with what others have said about MMY.  It 
is
 hard to think MMY  as anything but narcissistic.  I think empathy is
 important.  Some do not.  I know some (very few) physicians who do
 excellent work in research or on the table, but do not show empathy 
and
 I believe them to have narcissistic traits.   They are motivated by
 success, not by heart.  They rarely burn out as they do not suffer 
much
 when their patients suffer. Here they are saving lives, but not
 giving a shit about the individual. MMY comes across the same way.
 
   maybe not so perfect. I did see a purported quote from him
   once that said: There is pain, but there is no suffering.
 
  Yes, *that's* what I'm talking about.
 
 That is what I assumed.
 
I think this might
   be a bit too clever (if he in fact said this).
 
  It's the heart of the matter. MMY is by no means the
  only one to have said this; it's pretty standard in
  the enlightenment literature.
 
 When I had relatives,
   friends or patients who were dying, in pain and suffering, I
   suffered as well.  I felt pain.  That is the nature of empathy.
   And most I know who are dying make a peace with it and there
   is a serenity with the pain and suffering.  But there is still
   pain and suffering and sometimes it overwhelms.
 
  Not sure what your point is here. Theoretically, in
  enlightenment, the pain would never overwhelm (or
  overshadow) the bliss and serenity.
 
 So says the pitch.   My point is that suffering is part of life and
 hopefully  you make your peace.   You don't need enlightenment or 
TM to
 do so.For years I worked with people who were in pain and 
suffering
 as I worked for a cancer clinic.  My patients  suffered and most,
 whether they survived their cancer or were terminal,  found peace 
none
 the less.  TM not required.  And I have never ever ever met a 
meditator
 who appears to have gone beyond suffering.   I know several long 
term
 Sidhas, most of whom only irregularly practice their program and 
can be
 described as ordinary people living ordinary lives.  But two of 
them are
 such TBs that I cannot have a coherent conversation with them but 
they
 do seem to be very flat in their emotional responses to 
others.  Oh mom
 died?  I have to get back to Mother Divine. Don't tell me anything
 bad, I don't want to hear.   Neither have managed to hold down a 
job
 for years. (Though they may have ended up that way even without TM, 
who
 knows.)  For them, their world revolves around their own 
enlightenment
 and they lost something in the process.
 
 As far as your own suffering decreasing over time, it may be just 
the
 wisdom of experience and the passage of years.Again, who knows.
snip
 The greatest flaw of MMY appears to me to be his
 lack of empathy.
   
He spent his entire adult life attempting to show
people how to live their lives in fullness without
being overshadowed by its necessary pain, and he
lacks empathy??
  
   Yes, I stand by my statement.  If I have some time, I will
   discuss this more later.  But folks, I sure would love to
   see some quotes from him that illustrate empathy.  I sure
   would love to see some quotes where he expresses sadness or
   expresses sympathy for the suffering of others.
 
  Before I spend the time to dig some up, do you require
  these quotes to be about individuals, or can they be more
  general statements about human suffering?
 
 As both Curtis and I have said, expressions about human suffering 
say
 nothing about his empathy.  How did he treat those around him?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mrfishey2001 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ 
wrote:
 
  
  --- mrfishey2001 mrfishey2001@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
   sandiego108@ wrote:

no, but you can kill yourself as dead as any dead
   person, and remain 
alive-- that's magical. As for all the other,
   materially based stuff 
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a
   complete waste of 
time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous
   and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
   
   
   --
   
   Mr Sandiego – this is truly enchanting to me - an
   unenlightened. A wealth of possibilities. 
   Might I ask; if your young son was dying of cancer,
   would you be able to save him?
  
  Hopefully he could by giving him the best medical care
  possible.
  
 ---
 
 
 Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys 
discussing his experiences 
 of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good 
fortune of commonsense and 
 medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I 
ask; from his level of 
 development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
  
This is a question that comes up all the time from seekers-- can 
karma, my karma, especially the bad stuff be avoided? I remember 
laughing about a thought I shared with another enlightened guy once, 
how at one time we were both so mired in the negativity of the 
world that we couldn't wait to get enlightened and escape it- lol.

Doesn't work like that. If anything, life is embraced much more 
fully and realistically, with eyes always wide open once 
enlightenment dawns. Karma is karma. If it wasn't there we wouldn't 
be able to use it as the extraordinary and God given resource that 
it is.

But before this happens, seekers including me get all excited about 
magical and mystical powers because for them, and me, it is a way to 
think of escaping the unskillful, karma bound life they and I were 
living. Impossible.

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

  As for all the other, materially based stuff 
 like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a complete waste of 
 time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
 a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.

So you are in the second camp--flying is not important.

If it is just a way to entice the unenlightened, entice me.  Show me
that you can fly.  

You see, I think yogic flying is a fraud. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical care
possible.  What is the difference?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip One of my teachers once said (and should have
 listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
 people say, but watch what they DO.

Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? first it was 
the Maharishi who was fucked up, according to you, Next its Rama, who 
was fucked up, according to you, and you don't like me either-- not 
that I am a teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly the  
things you do, and lives the way you do, you have big issues with 
them. 

Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except Barry. How 
infantile of you. 

[FairfieldLife] Subject: Thoughts from Marianne Williamson on the crisis in the U.S.

[Rick Archer]

Subject: Thoughts from Marianne Williamson on the crisis in the U.S.


 Dear Friends,

 In my book HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA, I wrote about an experience
 I had in a hotel lobby in New Delhi during the mid l990's. It resonates
 deeply for me today. An Egyptian diplomat, whom I met while taking a break
 from leading a spiritual pilgrimage to India, came up to me and gently,
kindly
 said these words:

 I do not mean this as a criticism of the United States. I know the
Americans are

 good men and women. But please try to make them understand: many people in 

 my part of the world feel that they have been forced to try to keep up with
you, in

 a race that we do not really care to run. Your technology is amazing, but
America 

 seems spiritually polluted to many of us. Your ways are not our ways, and
while

 we were tempted for a while to think that your ways should be our ways, we
do not 

 think that anymore.

 This is the problem, Ms. Williamson, and there will be terrible
consequences

 in the world if America does not come to understand this. Islamic
terrorists have

 had such success- if you can call their campaigns a success -- because they
have

 been able to persuade millions of peasants that America is bad. It is not
too difficult

 to do, Ms. Williamson.  All they have to do is describe the television
programs you

 export to this part of the world, and millions of people are very
horrified.  America
 often comes across to us as very arrogant and uncaring.

 Your government does not understand. They do not see how the people feel.
 We need the American people to understand. Perhaps you will bring more

 Americans to our part of the world. If they come to understand us, then
 they will respect us. We would feel that respect, and then I don't think
 that the terrorists would have such success. This is not a job the CIA can
 do. It is only a job which people can do.

 His words have rung in my ears over the last few days, and I thought that
 perhaps they would ring in yours. They reveal important information, which
 I hope we all take to heart.

 Peace and love to all of you,
 Marianne Williamson

 C Marianne Williamson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
   As for all the other, materially based stuff 
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like a complete waste 
of 
  time. Compared to normal life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- 
just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 So you are in the second camp--flying is not important.
 
 If it is just a way to entice the unenlightened, entice me.  Show 
me
 that you can fly.  
 
 You see, I think yogic flying is a fraud.

When I did the flying technique, I was able to achieve really good 
results, comparatively; up in the air with little corresponding 
muscular effort, and sometimes none. The internal experience of 
completely dissolving into light was by far the most spectacular 
result though, and one that began to culture my nervous system for 
enlightenment.

When I said it (the flying thing) is used as an enticement to the 
unenlightened, the unenlightened mind cannot concieve of the 
experience of enlightenment, so Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would use all 
kinds of methods to induce his followers to progressively attune 
themselves to Universal conciousness, without letting them in on the 
open secret that their previous identity would disappear for all 
intents and purposes once the goal was achieved,, or perhaps more 
precisely, they would lose all attachment to it. I think it was 
pretty clever-- whatever works.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  
  So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
some 
  mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
 
 So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical 
care
 possible.  What is the difference?
 

What does any of this have to do with enlightenment? 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr.
  Sandiego enjoys discussing his experiences 
  of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to
  the good fortune of commonsense and 
  medical coverage, his magical power could heal the
  sick. And so I ask; from his level of 
  development could he save his son using mystical
  power alone?
 
 You already know the answer to that.
 

-

No, you already know the answer to that.

--

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[mrfishey2001]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mrfishey2001 
 mrfishey2001@ wrote:
 
  Yes, of course. But from what I understand Mr. Sandiego enjoys 
 discussing his experiences 
  of enlightenment. I was hoping that, in addition to the good 
 fortune of commonsense and 
  medical coverage, his magical power could heal the sick. And so I 
 ask; from his level of 
  development could he save his son using mystical power alone? 
   
 This is a question that comes up all the time from seekers-- can 
 karma, my karma, especially the bad stuff be avoided? I remember 
 laughing about a thought I shared with another enlightened guy once, 
 how at one time we were both so mired in the negativity of the 
 world that we couldn't wait to get enlightened and escape it- lol.
 
 Doesn't work like that. If anything, life is embraced much more 
 fully and realistically, with eyes always wide open once 
 enlightenment dawns. Karma is karma. If it wasn't there we wouldn't 
 be able to use it as the extraordinary and God given resource that 
 it is.
 
 But before this happens, seekers including me get all excited about 
 magical and mystical powers because for them, and me, it is a way to 
 think of escaping the unskillful, karma bound life they and I were 
 living. Impossible.
 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

-

From my perspective it's difficult to imagine a state of consciousness, 
outside of sleep, 
that would spare me that kind of sorrow. I'd not thought of it so much as 
mystical 
mumbo-jumbo, more the incomparable gift of healing. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:


Ruth wrote:
  Can you change the atoms around in your 
  body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.


Sandiego wrote:
  No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
  dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
  As for all the other, materially based stuff
  like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
  a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
  life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
  a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.

Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
tell us about it.

I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
something James Randi would want to investigate.

I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
pavement.

I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
would like to see.

The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
me completely, can you enlarge on this?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[curtisdeltablues]

  Why are you acting like such a dick?
  
 Because you are making TMO status claims and 
 trying to make us think that you were close to 
 the Marshy?

I have corrected this statement too many times for me to take the bait
again Richard.  I have an opinion about the guy.  That is all.

 That you were trying to make me feel
 inferior because you once sat in the same hotel
 lobby with the Marshy?

That was kind of interesting Richard.  Tell me more about how I am
trying to make you feel inferior?  If you have a drop of self
reflective ability, you might find some useful information in that
statement.  Good luck with that.









--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   maybe the Marshy thought you sucked as a TM 
   teacher and sucked even more as a manager.
  
  Trollish and argumentative.  Are you working 
  on me so that I will ignore your posts as most 
  others do?  
 
 Well, it's obvious to almost everyone that you
 TM teachers failed - you failed at your stated
 goals. Almost none of the projects you supposedly
 worked on suceeeded. So, I wouldn't blame the
 Marshy for kicking you out. In private business,
 you would have been fired years ago, due to a 
 failure in management. But it's nothing to be
 defensive about - not very many people succeed 
 at being spiritual teachers, especially when 
 their goal is to 'spiritually regenerate' the 
 entire world. Unless you are some kind of saint
 or guru, you are surely going to fail big time.
 Is that what is really bothering you?
  
  Why are you acting like such a dick?
  
 Because you are making TMO status claims and 
 trying to make us think that you were close to 
 the Marshy? That you were trying to make me feel
 inferior because you once sat in the same hotel
 lobby with the Marshy?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

 The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
 me completely, can you enlarge on this?


I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the experience
of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not be
extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction because it
cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  

Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
minute.  How great is that?

It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
 
 
 Ruth wrote:
   Can you change the atoms around in your 
   body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.
 
 
 Sandiego wrote:
   No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
   dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
   As for all the other, materially based stuff
   like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
   a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
   life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
   a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
 
 Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
 that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
 If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
 tell us about it.
 
 I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
 being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
 your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
 are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
 even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
 and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
 are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
 haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
 things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
 as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
 still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
 something James Randi would want to investigate.
 
 I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
 falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
 that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
 that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
 would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
 whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
 pavement.
 
 I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
 any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
 block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
 would like to see.
 
 The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
 me completely, can you enlarge on this?

[FairfieldLife] Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[Rick Archer]

-Original Message-
From: Judith Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:39 AM
To: Rick Archer
Subject: RE: Over the Limit?

Rick--

No, I haven't suspended you. I guess Barry missed the post in which I said
I
wasn't going to.

Actually you didn't say that. You quoted my email but didn't say 
anything about not suspending me.

Shall I tell him or would you like to surprise him Friday
night.

I don't care about that. I would like for you to post my response 
(below) to his latest diatribe, given that his comments are based on 
your quote from my email, and he indulged in his usual 
misrepresentations thereof.

Judy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]






  Your rollover time in NJ is 8pm.


SearchSummit
Rick Archer
President
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1108 S. B St.
Fairfield, IA 52556-3805
tel: 641-472-9336
fax: 914-470-9336
Skype ID:Rick_Archer


  -Original Message-
  From: Judith Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:35 AM
  To: Rick Archer
  Subject: RE: Over the Limit?
 
  Rick--
 
  I won't suspend you, given this explanation. I guess if people want to
  waste
  their posts commenting on post counts, that's part of the free speech
  of
  FFL. Maybe Bharitu's tally will help people obsess less on the issue.
 
  Have you or haven't you suspended me next week? Did you tell Barry
  privately that you had? He seems to think you have:
 
  Judy, in a fit of being (dare I say it?) REAL
  REAL STPID, has bounced herself off
  the forum next week.
 
  And since you saw fit to post my earlier private email to you
  publicly, I'd appreciate it if you'd also post this to correct
  Barry's misunderstandings (in post #179501):
 
  -
 
Well said. There wouldn't be posting limits
at all if some didn't feel they had the right
to make 37 posts a day. What would that be, if
allowed all week? 259 posts.
 
  I never made anywhere near 259 posts a week even when
  there were no posting limits. Making 37 posts one day
  doesn't automatically mean making the same number every
  day of the week.
 
  Barry often claims he doesn't read my posts anyway and
  has noted how easy it is to skip over posts he's not
  interested in.
 
  snip
This is the *second* time that Judy has claimed
to have been misled by the Yahoo Search engine
when she went over the posting limit. This time
was only a few hours after she *herself* had
explained why she started posting again this
week earlier than midnight Fairfield time.
 
  What I got fouled up on (as I explained in my email to
  Rick) was translating the time of Bhairitu's daily count,
  which is what I was trying to go by, to my time zone.
  The Yahoo Advanced Search just reinforced that mistake.
  If Bharitu hadn't been doing his own count, I would have
  done a hand count from the Message List rather than using
  Advanced Search. The only reason I checked Advanced Search
  at all was to see if it was the same as Bhairitu's count.
 
I say the same thing this time that I said last
time. If she's willing to admit that she's a
total fuckin' idiot who is unaware of time zones
 
  I'm not unaware of time zones, of course. I just didn't
  figure the translation to my time zone from the UT time
  zone of Bhairitu's last count correctly, so my own count
  was two posts off, leading me to make one extra post.
 
  As Sal, Rick, and Bhairitu have all pointed out, the time
  zone thing can be confusing. That's why I suggested Bhairitu
  include a table with the time of his daily count for each
  time zone, which he's agreed to do.
 
  -
 
  Thank you.
 
  Judy
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  SearchSummit
  Rick Archer
  President
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1108 S. B St.
  Fairfield, IA 52556-3805
  tel: 641-472-9336
  fax: 914-470-9336
  Skype ID:Rick_Archer
  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf
Of authfriend
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:08 PM
To: Rick Archer
Subject: Over the Limit?
   
Rick--
   
Barry's latest:
   
 You do, however, feel free to exceed the
 posting limit any time you feel like it.

 That's 51, according to Yahoo.

 Rick, given the fact that Judy has been
 reminded of her total number of posts
 several times today, is this or is this
 not a flagrant violation of the posting
 limits?

 Your call, of course.
   
Obviously, I'm not going to rely on Barry's reminders of my
  posting
count. He is, to put it mildly, not reliable, especially with
  regard
to anything concerning me. He didn't even know, when he complained
about the two posts I made Friday night after 7 pm CST, that the
week's turning point had been changed to accommodate Bhairitu's
software.
   
I 

[FairfieldLife] Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[TurquoiseB]

Springboarding off of an earlier discussion:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  snip 
  One of my teachers once said (and should have
  listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
  people say, but watch what they DO.

 Mr. Enlightened Guy:
 Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? 
 first it was the Maharishi who was fucked up, according 
 to you, Next its Rama, who was fucked up, according to 
 you, and you don't like me either-- not that I am a 
 teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly 
 the things you do, and lives the way you do, you have 
 big issues with them.
 
 Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except 
 Barry. How infantile of you.

Let's examine this.

Who is it exactly, in the last couple of days,
who has been acting infantile? Who is it that,
when his holy word was questioned -- first about
his claim that no one had ever stood up to Maha-
rishi (a complete untruth), and second, when he
claimed to know how heaven was decorated -- flew
into what appears to many people on this forum
as an uncontrollable rage and proceeded to claim
that one of his critics was gay and that another
was crazy and needed medication? Who basically
LOST IT HEAVILY in public and turned abusive?

And who, today, is now spouting more pseudo-
enlightened bullshit AS IF NOTHING HAD
HAPPENED, and expects people to react to
his pseudo-enlightened bullshit as if he were
really enlightened?

There are many names for this. Chronic Abuser
Syndrome is one of them. 

It's the same phenomenon that allows someone
lost in narcissism to beat the crap out of his
wife and kids one day, and expect them to love
him the next. The chronic abuser expects them
to forgive and forget, because he HAS forgotten;
he honestly can't really *remember* being abusive.

But he was. 

Now apply this syndrome to spiritual teachers you
have known and worked with. Have any of them had
the occasional problem with flying into rages and
ripping someone (possibly even you) a new asshole,
and then, often only minutes later, expected you
to not only forgive them, but to place your entire
future spiritual life in their hands and trust 
them without question?

In my opinion, this is the cycle that our resident
Mr. Enlightened Guy is caught in. 

He really doesn't seem to be able to *remember*
embarrassing himself thoroughly the day before. 
He can't seem to recall that not only did only one
person on this forum fall for his gay-baiting 
troll, *all* others who replied soundly criticized
him for pulling it. He can't seem to recall having
insulted Sal and do.rflex and others on this forum 
for having committed the Ultimate Sin -- not taking 
him as seriously as he takes himself. And now he 
expects everyone else's memory to be as faulty and 
as selective as his own. 

He starts a new day spouting pseudo-enlightened
bullshit *as if no one here has any memory of
yesterday*, and how abusive and out of control
he was then. He expects them to start over and
pretend that yesterday never existed, just as he
has. (And just as he did when he threw a snit-fit
and stalked off the forum some months ago, only to 
appear a little later with a new user ID, as if 
*that* could make his embarrassing past go away.)

And, mark my words, this new, improved Mr. Enlight-
ened Guy ain't gonna last. Within a few more posts,
possibly even today, he's going to be back in the
abuse cycle again. It'll start the moment someone
challenges his holy word, and fails to treat him
like the teacher he has delusions of being, while
claiming the opposite.

He'll lash out at me, or at Sal, or at someone else
here, and in his mind that will be the mysterious
and unfathomable and unchallengeable workings of
enlightenment. And then later he'll spout some more
pseudo-enlightened bullshit he picked up from a 
comic book about enlightenment, and he'll expect
everyone here to forget the abuse part of the cycle
just as thoroughly as he has. And if they don't,
the abuse will start over again.

Mr. Enlightened Guy is right about one thing. I had
somewhat questionable taste in spiritual teachers.
Like many others, I allowed them both to pull this
chronic abuser shit for many years until I caught
on to it, and stopped being a codependent partici-
pant in it through my acceptance of the abuse. I'm 
certainly not going to enter into a similar code-
pendant relationship with another asshole with a 
narcissism complex out the yin-yang who wants to
play abuse games so that people will focus on him.

At *least* Maharishi and Rama could talk the talk.
Mr. Enlightened Guy can't even do that. Using one's 
own out-of-control narcissism as an excuse to abuse
others isn't enlightenment in my book; it's insanity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[sandiego108]

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

 Springboarding off of an earlier discussion:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   snip 
   One of my teachers once said (and should have
   listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
   people say, but watch what they DO.
 
  Jim:
  Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? 
  first it was the Maharishi who was fucked up, according 
  to you, Next its Rama, who was fucked up, according to 
  you, and you don't like me either-- not that I am a 
  teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly 
  the things you do, and lives the way you do, you have 
  big issues with them.
  
  Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except 
  Barry. How infantile of you.
 
 Barry:
 Let's examine this.
 
 Who is it exactly, in the last couple of days,
 who has been acting infantile? snip

Yep- once again, *I* am the one with problems, *I* am the one who's 
behavior needs to change, according to Barry. First it was 
Maharishi, then it was Rama, and now its me, (leaving no doubt many, 
many unnamed people that should also change their behavior, 
according to Barry).

Maybe if you didn't think of yourself proudly as an inveterate 
asshole (your words), you would not see the world as full of your 
enemies, Barry. Something to think about. While you're at it, grow 
up.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

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

 
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 
 
 I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
experience
 of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not 
be
 extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
 stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
because it
 cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
 
 Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
 available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
 after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
 minute.  How great is that?
 
 It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
 
Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 

For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.

On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life after 
death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
like a candle, that is fine.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[satvadude108]

 If I were running this forum, now that Bhairitu is making a daily
 report, I'd make a rule that nobody gets to comment about the
   number
 of posts others have made, except for an announcement by the
 moderator when someone is suspended for going over.

 If you want to suspend me for going over by one post, fine. But
   this
 constant harassment really needs to stop.

 Judy


Wow. That certainly speaks volumes.

Would Enlightened guys be allowed to post about
fag hags?

no disrespect to Turq B intended
complete disrespect to SandiEgo intended

I don't think that with you running this forum
that it would be as cool a place as it is. Just my opinion
and POV of course.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Angela Mailander]

thanks, Bhairitu,
I started out ambidextrous, so they tied my left hand behind my back.  Trouble 
was that when I wrote with my left hand, people needed a mirror to read it.  I, 
of course, didn't need the mirror with the result that to this day I can't tell 
left from right and related little things.  When I'm tired, a 6 looks just like 
a 9 to me, and my checkbook has often suffered for my inability to distinguish 
between 18 and 81.

  


--- On Sun, 8/6/08, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, 8 June, 2008, 6:41 PM
 Congrats on your successful show!  I started out in life as
 an artist as 
 soon as I could hold a pencil but in my left hand.  Art
 teachers 
 back then didn't know what to do about that and
 actually I discovered 
 later in life in attempts to draw with my right hand the
 vision in my 
 mind more closely matched what I drew than with my left. 
 Of course my 
 right hand had less developed skills.
 
 Angela Mailander wrote:
  You are right on guys, back in the 70s I wrote a poem
 about that experience when I was still head over heels in
 love with my own experiences: Woke up this
 morning/couldn't re-/member who I was or where/but then
 things stiffened, reporting for duty...  Too bad I
 didn't have you to advise me and manage a guru
 business, Bhairitu. I'd been meditating thirty years by
 then.
 
  I'm more or less back, but I still won't be
 able to read any but a very few posts.  My show at the
 gallery was, I hear, a huge success, lots of stuff sold,
 and the gallery wants me to get ready for a bigger show in
 July.  My studio is barely set up, and, here I don't
 know where to buy paint yet. 
 
 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  Springboarding off of an earlier discussion:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip 
One of my teachers once said (and should have
listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
people say, but watch what they DO.
  
   Jim:
   Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? 
   first it was the Maharishi who was fucked up, according 
   to you, Next its Rama, who was fucked up, according to 
   you, and you don't like me either-- not that I am a 
   teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly 
   the things you do, and lives the way you do, you have 
   big issues with them.
   
   Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except 
   Barry. How infantile of you.
  
  Barry:
  Let's examine this.
  
  Who is it exactly, in the last couple of days,
  who has been acting infantile? snip
 
 Yep- once again, *I* am the one with problems, *I* am the one 
 who's behavior needs to change, according to Barry. First it 
 was Maharishi, then it was Rama, and now its me, (leaving no 
 doubt many, many unnamed people that should also change their 
 behavior, according to Barry).
 
 Maybe if you didn't think of yourself proudly as an inveterate 
 asshole (your words), you would not see the world as full of 
 your enemies, Barry. Something to think about. While you're at 
 it, grow up.

How DO you know how heaven is decorated, Jim?

How did you know, as you claimed, that no one
had ever stood up to Maharishi?

A grownup would answer.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Rick Archer wrote:



-Original Message-
From: Judith Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:39 AM
To: Rick Archer
Subject: RE: Over the Limit?

Rick--

No, I haven't suspended you. I guess Barry missed the post in  
which I said

I

wasn't going to.


Actually you didn't say that. You quoted my email but didn't say
anything about not suspending me.



Actually here's what Rick actually said:

Bhairtu’s post counting thingy is now the official determiner of  
post totals. Next time he posts it, if Judy or anyone is over the  
limit, even by one, I’ll suspend them for a week (or more if it’s a  
repeated offense). No one has an excuse for accidentally overposting  
now. Bhairtu’s tally makes the totals very clear to all.


Unfortunately, it does look like your over by one post Judy.

I know, counting to 50 can be SO difficult.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Over the limit? (was Re: What Voters Saw Tuesday Night)

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 Someone asked: Suggestion: When Bhairitu posts his counts, 
 perhaps he could include a table of U.S. time zones indicating 
 what time the count was made in each zone. Maybe include 
 applicable time zones for regular posters not in the U.S. (UK, 
 Spain, others?). That shouldn't be hard for him to program so 
 it's automatic each time.
   
 Or, people for whom makingnbsp;50 posts per week is such a 
 big issue could simply get a life.
 

 Well said. There wouldn't be posting limits
 at all if some didn't feel they had the right
 to make 37 posts a day. What would that be, if
 allowed all week? 259 posts. Multiply that by
 three (the number of posters who would probably
 still be posting that much if not for the limits),
 and you have 777 posts per week, 627 more than
 what we have to wade through with hip boots
 with the limits in place.
I think I've got some Thunderbird archives around here that pre post 
limit.  I might run a count on the file to see how posting was back then. :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
 unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
 myself, my identity. 

Jim, 

Given this statement, can you explain WTF your lack 
of self and identity was THINKING yesterday 
when you launched into the gay thing?

I mean, let's look at it rationally. I did two things
to set you off...count them, two:

1. I corrected a mistake that you had made. You claimed
that no one had ever stood up to Maharishi, to his face.
That is a complete fantasy, fabricated by someone *who
was never even in a position to know that what he claimed
was true*. 

2. I laughed at you. When you said, in all seriousness,
that you knew how heaven was decorated, I poked fun at
that, and at you.

And you -- lack of self and identity and all -- felt
that that justified launching into a *series* of gay
slurs aimed at me. When others similarly challenged
your holy word or laughed at you, you lit into them
as well.

Please explain to me, from your enlightened perspective,
how this does NOT fall into the description of the
narcissistic chronic abuser I posted earlier.

I'll wait.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  
   The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
   me completely, can you enlarge on this?
  
  
  I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
 experience
  of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could 
not 
 be
  extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
would
  stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
 because it
  cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
  
  Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
  available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
  after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
  minute.  How great is that?
  
  It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
  
 Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
 
 For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
 unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
 myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
 not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
 This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.

Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
(bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

 
 On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
after 
 death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
 outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
 like a candle, that is fine.



'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
Tell us more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

This jump is too far IMO.  People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they?  Probably most don't
have EEGs either.  I have never heard any doctor claim that they knew
that the electrical chemical activity of the brain had ceased in these
experiences.  And of course the person going in and out of
consciousness is about as unreliable a witness as you can get of what
happened when.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   
The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
me completely, can you enlarge on this?
   
   
   I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the 
  experience
   of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could 
 not 
  be
   extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
 would
   stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
  because it
   cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  
   
   Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
   available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
   after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
   minute.  How great is that?
   
   It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
   
  Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
  
  For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
  unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
  myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
  not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
  This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.
 
 Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
 the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
 and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
 (bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
 All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
 any conscious experience.
 
  
  On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
 after 
  death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
  outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
  like a candle, that is fine.
 
 
 
 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
 a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
 Tell us more.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[TurquoiseB]

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

 
 On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Judith Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:39 AM
  To: Rick Archer
  Subject: RE: Over the Limit?
 
  Rick--
 
   No, I haven't suspended you. I guess Barry missed the post in  
   which I said I wasn't going to.
 
  Actually you didn't say that. You quoted my email but didn't say
  anything about not suspending me.
 
 
 Actually here's what Rick actually said:
 
 Bhairtu's post counting thingy is now the official determiner of  
 post totals. Next time he posts it, if Judy or anyone is over the  
 limit, even by one, I'll suspend them for a week (or more if it's a  
 repeated offense). No one has an excuse for accidentally overposting  
 now. Bhairtu's tally makes the totals very clear to all.
 
 Unfortunately, it does look like your over by one post Judy.
 
 I know, counting to 50 can be SO difficult.

53. 

Judy is trying to pull off not only making 
51 posts during the week and getting away with
it, she's making even *more* posts this week, 
via Rick. 

Honestly, I think that if we're all on this
forum when she dies, she'll find some way
to come back from the grave to finish any
lingering arguments, and to get in the
last word.

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
 wrote:
snip
  
  On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
 after 
  death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
  outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
  like a candle, that is fine.
 
 
 
 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
 a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
 Tell us more.

We can wait for Sandiego, but this is consistent with what he has said
in the past; he is the creator of his own world. And if you create the
world around you, I assume you create your own death and what happens
after your death. 

Taking this further, Sandiego can say anything to any of us because we
are his creation. So he can make gay jibes at Turq or refuse to fly
for me.  

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of satvadude108
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:11 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

 

I don't think that with you running this forum
that it would be as cool a place as it is. Just my opinion
and POV of course.

You mean with me running it or without me running it? If my influence is
making it a cool place, then I guess I'm receiving karmic redress for being
a dork in high school.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Angela Mailander]

I have read reports of EEGs flatlining in near death experiences (NDE)nbsp; 
But your point still remains well taken.nbsp; Remember what St. Agustine said, 
I measure it, but what it is I measure, I do not know.nbsp;nbsp;And just 
cause we have EEGs doesn't mean thatnbsp;we're measuring all there is to 
measure.nbsp; Near death experiences may be just that:nbsp; Near.nbsp; Near 
is no cigar.nbsp; I've hadnbsp;a groovynbsp;NDEnbsp;twice.nbsp; Certainly 
blow away experiences, but the point is, I came back and I have no way of 
knowing what, if anything,nbsp;would happen if I didn't come back.nbsp; It's 
hard to imagine hownbsp;there could be less than pure consciousness, but hey, 
lots of shit happens on a daily basisnbsp;that I couldn't have 
imagined.nbsp;nbsp;

--- On Mon, 9/6/08, curtisdeltablues lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; wrote:

From: curtisdeltablues lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 9 June, 2008, 11:39 AM






lt;All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.gt;

This jump is too far IMO. People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they? Probably most don't
have EEGs either. I have never heard any doctor claim that they knew
that the electrical chemical activity of the brain had ceased in these
experiences. And of course the person going in and out of
consciousness is about as unreliable a witness as you can get of what
happened when.

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Hugo lt;richardhughes103@ ...gt; 
wrote:
gt;
gt; --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, sandiego108 lt;sandiego108@ 
gt; 
gt; wrote:
gt; gt;
gt; gt; --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, curtisdeltablues 
gt; gt; lt;curtisdeltablues@ gt; wrote:
gt; gt; gt;
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; gt; The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
gt; gt; gt; gt; me completely, can you enlarge on this?
gt; gt; gt; gt;
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; I remember believing this. My reasoning was based on the 
gt; gt; experience
gt; gt; gt; of witnessing sleep. I decided that if my consciousness could 
gt; not 
gt; gt; be
gt; gt; gt; extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness 
gt; would
gt; gt; gt; stay on. It is really a fascinating area of the conviction 
gt; gt; because it
gt; gt; gt; cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched. 
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
gt; gt; gt; available. I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
gt; gt; gt; after death. The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
gt; gt; gt; minute. How great is that?
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; gt; It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo 
long!
gt; gt; gt; 
gt; gt; Ha ha-- good one! I like that. 
gt; gt; 
gt; gt; For Hugo: What I was talking about is the dissolution of, or 
gt; gt; unwinding of, or lack of attachment to, what I used to consider as 
gt; gt; myself, my identity. Now those pieces have either gone away or I am 
gt; gt; not attached to them-- in any case have nothing to do with them. 
gt; gt; This description if heard by most would be thought of as being dead.
gt; 
gt; Oh right, I thought we were talking near-death experiences like
gt; the person, apparently dead, who travels down tunnels of light
gt; and has visits from dead relatives, sometimes even alive ones
gt; (bit of a giveaway to it being a totally subjective thing I think)
gt; All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
gt; any conscious experience.
gt; 
gt; 
gt; gt; On the topic you bring up Curtis, whether or not there is life 
gt; after 
gt; gt; death, it depends, and I don't much concern myself about what the 
gt; gt; outcome is, since it is dependent on my actions anyway. If I go out 
gt; gt; like a candle, that is fine.
gt; gt;
gt; 
gt; 
gt; 'It depends whether their is life after death on my actions' This is 
gt; a new one on me! And on every other religious system I've heard about.
gt; Tell us more.
gt;

 













Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  Springboarding off of an earlier discussion:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip 
One of my teachers once said (and should have
listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
people say, but watch what they DO.
  
   Jim:
   Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? 
   first it was the Maharishi who was fucked up, according 
   to you, Next its Rama, who was fucked up, according to 
   you, and you don't like me either-- not that I am a 
   teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly 
   the things you do, and lives the way you do, you have 
   big issues with them.
   
   Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except 
   Barry. How infantile of you.
  
  Barry:
  Let's examine this.
  
  Who is it exactly, in the last couple of days,
  who has been acting infantile? snip
 
 Yep- once again, *I* am the one with problems, *I* am the one who's 
 behavior needs to change, according to Barry. First it was 
 Maharishi, then it was Rama, and now its me, 



It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your *own*
continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the result is to
become a shithead like you.



(leaving no doubt many, 
 many unnamed people that should also change their behavior, 
 according to Barry).
 
 Maybe if you didn't think of yourself proudly as an inveterate 
 asshole (your words), you would not see the world as full of your 
 enemies, Barry. Something to think about. While you're at it, grow 
 up.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Hugo]

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

 
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 
 
 I remember believing this.  My reasoning was based on the experience
 of witnessing sleep.  I decided that if my consciousness could not 
be
 extinguished by sleep that somehow if I died my consciousness would
 stay on.  It is really a fascinating area of the conviction because 
it
 cannot be experienced but it gets very entrenched.  

I think that we somehow survive death is probably the one 
idea that unites all cultures. . I can see where they all
get there ideas from, historically most lives must have 
been pretty damn miserable and the thought that you go 
through all that crap just to never be seen again must be
a bit of a pisser.

I tried the eastern trip on for size when I learnt TM but
it didn't take and I'm happier thinking this is the one 
and only time and that in a few years the world I've created
in my head will be gone, anything else will be a bonus of 
course.


 Now I believe that when the hardware crashes, the software is not
 available.  I am at peace with the idea of my personal extinction
 after death.  The amazing thing is that I am conscious this very
 minute.  How great is that?

Pretty damn amazing indeed. Hardly a day goes by without me 
wondering about it.
 
 It's not that life is so short, it's that we're dead soo long!
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
sandiego108@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
no_reply@ 
   wrote:
  
  
  Ruth wrote:
Can you change the atoms around in your 
body to make yourself into a tree?  Etc.
  
  
  Sandiego wrote:
No, but you can kill yourself as dead as any
dead person, and remain alive-- that's magical.
As for all the other, materially based stuff
like shape shifting and flying, it looks like 
a complete waste of time. Compared to normal 
life, it seems ludicrous and foolish-- just 
a way to entice the unenlightened, that's all.
  
  Not sure I understand this correctly, are you claiming
  that you've done this or just *know* that it's possible.
  If the latter, how do you know? If the former can you
  tell us about it.
  
  I can't see the ability to change shape and fly as
  being foolish, more a sort of demonstration that
  your ideas about reality and the minds place in it
  are real. I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
  even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
  and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
  are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we 
  haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
  things. The only unusual thing I saw in all my years
  as a yogic flyer, were people sleeping all day and
  still being tired enough to kip at night, hardly
  something James Randi would want to investigate.
  
  I would like to be enticed by a demonstration, a
  falsifiable experiment is the only way of demonstrating
  that a theory is on the right track. I think for flying
  that someone jumping of the top floor of a skyscraper
  would be all the demo we need. Falsified of course by 
  whoever wants to pick up the gauntlet hitting the 
  pavement.
  
  I'm being serious, if the TMO could demonstrate
  any of the sidhis there would be queues round the 
  block to learn. Which is apparently what they 
  would like to see.
  
  The killing yourself and still being alive baffles
  me completely, can you enlarge on this?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[yifuxero]

--thx...I agree fully.  It's amazing to what degree people can dupe 
themselves; even (or especially) those in the Neo-Advaitic level.

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

 Springboarding off of an earlier discussion:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
   snip 
   One of my teachers once said (and should have
   listened to his own advice IMO): Listen to what
   people say, but watch what they DO.
 
  Mr. Enlightened Guy:
  Some teacher. you have some knack for picking them, huh? 
  first it was the Maharishi who was fucked up, according 
  to you, Next its Rama, who was fucked up, according to 
  you, and you don't like me either-- not that I am a 
  teacher, but it seems unless someone believes exactly 
  the things you do, and lives the way you do, you have 
  big issues with them.
  
  Sounds like a case of the whole world is crazy, except 
  Barry. How infantile of you.
 
 Let's examine this.
 
 Who is it exactly, in the last couple of days,
 who has been acting infantile? Who is it that,
 when his holy word was questioned -- first about
 his claim that no one had ever stood up to Maha-
 rishi (a complete untruth), and second, when he
 claimed to know how heaven was decorated -- flew
 into what appears to many people on this forum
 as an uncontrollable rage and proceeded to claim
 that one of his critics was gay and that another
 was crazy and needed medication? Who basically
 LOST IT HEAVILY in public and turned abusive?
 
 And who, today, is now spouting more pseudo-
 enlightened bullshit AS IF NOTHING HAD
 HAPPENED, and expects people to react to
 his pseudo-enlightened bullshit as if he were
 really enlightened?
 
 There are many names for this. Chronic Abuser
 Syndrome is one of them. 
 
 It's the same phenomenon that allows someone
 lost in narcissism to beat the crap out of his
 wife and kids one day, and expect them to love
 him the next. The chronic abuser expects them
 to forgive and forget, because he HAS forgotten;
 he honestly can't really *remember* being abusive.
 
 But he was. 
 
 Now apply this syndrome to spiritual teachers you
 have known and worked with. Have any of them had
 the occasional problem with flying into rages and
 ripping someone (possibly even you) a new asshole,
 and then, often only minutes later, expected you
 to not only forgive them, but to place your entire
 future spiritual life in their hands and trust 
 them without question?
 
 In my opinion, this is the cycle that our resident
 Mr. Enlightened Guy is caught in. 
 
 He really doesn't seem to be able to *remember*
 embarrassing himself thoroughly the day before. 
 He can't seem to recall that not only did only one
 person on this forum fall for his gay-baiting 
 troll, *all* others who replied soundly criticized
 him for pulling it. He can't seem to recall having
 insulted Sal and do.rflex and others on this forum 
 for having committed the Ultimate Sin -- not taking 
 him as seriously as he takes himself. And now he 
 expects everyone else's memory to be as faulty and 
 as selective as his own. 
 
 He starts a new day spouting pseudo-enlightened
 bullshit *as if no one here has any memory of
 yesterday*, and how abusive and out of control
 he was then. He expects them to start over and
 pretend that yesterday never existed, just as he
 has. (And just as he did when he threw a snit-fit
 and stalked off the forum some months ago, only to 
 appear a little later with a new user ID, as if 
 *that* could make his embarrassing past go away.)
 
 And, mark my words, this new, improved Mr. Enlight-
 ened Guy ain't gonna last. Within a few more posts,
 possibly even today, he's going to be back in the
 abuse cycle again. It'll start the moment someone
 challenges his holy word, and fails to treat him
 like the teacher he has delusions of being, while
 claiming the opposite.
 
 He'll lash out at me, or at Sal, or at someone else
 here, and in his mind that will be the mysterious
 and unfathomable and unchallengeable workings of
 enlightenment. And then later he'll spout some more
 pseudo-enlightened bullshit he picked up from a 
 comic book about enlightenment, and he'll expect
 everyone here to forget the abuse part of the cycle
 just as thoroughly as he has. And if they don't,
 the abuse will start over again.
 
 Mr. Enlightened Guy is right about one thing. I had
 somewhat questionable taste in spiritual teachers.
 Like many others, I allowed them both to pull this
 chronic abuser shit for many years until I caught
 on to it, and stopped being a codependent partici-
 pant in it through my acceptance of the abuse. I'm 
 certainly not going to enter into a similar code-
 pendant relationship with another asshole with a 
 narcissism complex out the yin-yang who wants to
 play abuse games so that people will focus on him.
 
 At *least* Maharishi and Rama could talk the talk.
 Mr. Enlightened Guy can't even do that. Using one's 
 own out-of-control 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   
   So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
 some 
   mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
  
  So I assume that you would try to save him using the best medical 
 care
  possible.  What is the difference?
  
 
 What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?

I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
they are enlightened views the world. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Hugo wrote:


I've heard John Hagelins, not very convincing
even to a putz like me, lectures on quantum physics
and would like to know why, if people doing TM really
are experiencing and acting from the unified field, we
haven't seen anyone do any of these amazing super-normal
things.


You know, Hugo, the one super-normal thing I'd like to see people
 still heavily involved in TM do that would really blow me away
is treat others with basic respect and empathy on a regular
basis.  If that were to ever happen, I just might start believing
in pixie dust.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
sandiego108@
   wrote:
   

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
through 
  some 
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
   
   So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
medical 
  care
   possible.  What is the difference?
   
  
  What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
 
 I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
 they are enlightened views the world. 
 

Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)

If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
perspective you have on enlightenment.

Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 

There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
one, and forget about all of the speculation.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:39 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


All of this happens when the brain *should* be unable to conjure
any conscious experience.

This jump is too far IMO.  People having near death experiences are
don't have probes inside their brains do they?



There actually is some research on this, although thus far it is  
unpublished and rudimentary. According to the Dalai Lama in his  
recent book The Universe in a Single Atom there are actually teams of  
neuroscientists actually waiting and hoping to measure a yogi in  
Clear Light of Dying meditation. This is a form of meditation that  
occurs in a flat EEG after physical death during which certain parts  
of the body remain warm, but the person is physiologically dead. He  
cites a number of recent instances of people remaining  
'uncorruptable' for weeks in tropical climates during this style of  
meditation. So, believe it or not, this is an area we may see some  
research on relatively soon.


And of course there are meditation techniques to gain some experience  
of the death state ahead of time. To call such methods mind-blowing  
would be an understatement. Are they actually mimicking the death  
state? The only way to really know for sure is to try them out. As  
pilots say 'getting up is easy, it's landing (or re-entry) that's the  
hardest part.' :-)

[FairfieldLife] Writing about TM may be better for you than doing TM

[ruthsimplicity]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-healthy-typeprint=true

Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off.
Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic
benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings.
But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing
produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves
memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load
in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in
the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who
engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly
better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


 It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your *own*
 continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
 blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.

I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such accusations 
to yourself.
 
 I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the result 
is to
 become a shithead like you.
 
Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and Sal 
and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at all. 

Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit you 
thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you decide 
you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn that 
being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you return 
from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents all 
doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present and 
future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly and 
boldly and for all the world to hear:

Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a shithead! 
If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am going 
to become a doctor!

Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical inconsistency 
in what all of you are saying? 

Like I said, any excuse will do.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.

The question was in the context of whether you would use any
superpowers you might have to save your son, and you said you would
not. 
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

My own path is to question, to speculate, and to hear about the
experiences of others.  It is the way I am. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Rick Archer wrote:

You mean “with” me running it or “without” me running it? If my  
influence is making it a cool place, then I guess I’m receiving  
karmic redress for being a dork in high school.


Really?!  I *never* would have guessed, Rick.  I was certain that
everyone who ever joined up with the TMO did so out of an
excess of coolness. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Neuroscience of Compassion

[satvadude108]

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

 http://www.goodradioshows.org/peaceTalksL61.htm
 
 Link
 
 
 PEACE TALKS RADIO: The Neuroscience of Compassion
 


A post was made recently by a self-proclaimed enlightened
guy concerning the safety involved with weak buddhist 
techniques relative to the more powerful TMSP. Words like
merely and weak pull my attention when observing
people defending their position.

About 12 weeks ago I began formal instruction in mindfulness
meditation. The instruction is completely secular but follows
the traditional steps. Several techniques are covered to assist 
in integrating the practice into daily life. Sitting, standing, lying,
and walking positions are all used. Terminology is kept entirely
western with jargon such as samatha, vipassana, and metta
never being used. 

My subjective experience during a lovingkindness metta
meditation was very similar, possibly identical, to the clearest 
experiences I ever had during my Siddhi program. The
finest level of feeling was accessed. That amazed me and
I simply filed away that fact as I was not sure why or what that  
comparison or experience meant.

With a short passage of time I realized that the similarity or
differentiation of those experiences was unimportant. I may
or may not look more formally for some correlation in the 
future. Where I am, right here right now, is that it is a 
curiosity but doesn't really matter.

Before the class had begun, I made a conscious intention to 
suspend my practice of TM, begun 34 years ago, until the 
class was over. I felt, right or wrong, that it would be best
not to meld the two until I was somewhat grounded in the
practice. My concern that the mantra would spontaneously
appear and redirect my meditation was needless. This 
occurred only once and happened during a formal day long 
retreat of silence and mindfulness. A gentle shifting of 
the attention placed the mantra, an old friend, back on the 
shelf for another day.

Since that time I have found that my meditations using TM
have been subjectively very nice. If fact, nicer than ever. 
What this means and how I integrate this I am not sure. 
I am sure, however, that there is something quite profound
with this mindfulness meditation and it is a path I will 
continue. The Siddhi program, well, not so much. I walked 
away from it before the millennium and never miss it. 
No axe to grind, just one person's experience. 

Misconceptions I held regarding this variety of meditation 
are now, through experience, dispelled. The phenomenon 
of mental straining and remaining of the surface level of 
thought is not at all my experience. Quite the contrary. 
The interesting part to me is seeing people get fundamentalist   
on either side. 
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
 
  It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your *own*
  continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
  blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
 
 I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such accusations 
 to yourself.
  
  I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the result 
 is to
  become a shithead like you.
  
 Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and Sal 
 and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at all. 
 
 Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit you 
 thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you decide 
 you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn that 
 being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
 will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you return 
 from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents all 
 doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
 behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present and 
 future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
 difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly and 
 boldly and for all the world to hear:
 
 Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a shithead! 
 If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am going 
 to become a doctor!
 
 Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical inconsistency 
 in what all of you are saying? 
 
 Like I said, any excuse will do.


I know you get baited frequently, so I am not too bothered by the
reactions you might have to the posts of some others.  But are you
saying that an enlightened person can be a shit head?  I ask this
question of people because it just does not fit in with my world view.
 I just cant believe in an enlightenment without goodness.  And I
can't believe in tortured views of goodness where some purported
enlightened person treats another badly and it is rationalized away as
being good for them.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.


Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.

Her question comes out of your response to the question: could you use
magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 

So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through some
mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
save him, so why not the normal magical powers of enlightenment? 
And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical knowledge of
family members in the past so this question really does not represent
a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
nonexistent to me.

I don't believe I am enlightened 

This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to sell a
belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the past. 
In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I immediately
check my wallet.

I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to answer
questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
enlightened.  But once we get past that weirdness I enjoy these posts.
 It makes me rethink the whole proposal of what enlightenment might be
and if anyone at all is in such a state and even if it is a good thing
at all.  There are so many assumptions about this state from
traditional literature that discussing it this way helps me become
conscious of the assumptions.  A very interesting topic and I'm sure
we have not heard the end of it despite your advice.





 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
 sandiego108@
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
 through 
   some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
 medical 
   care
possible.  What is the difference?

   
   What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
  
  I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
  they are enlightened views the world. 
  
 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[satvadude108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of satvadude108
 Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:11 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side
 
  
 
 I don't think that with you running this forum
 that it would be as cool a place as it is. Just my opinion
 and POV of course.
 
 You mean with me running it or without me running it? If my influence is
 making it a cool place, then I guess I'm receiving karmic redress for being
 a dork in high school.


My comments were directed to the person you were 
channeling from the other side.

The way you run things is just fine with me Rick.

Minimal is a good thing. I hope the post counter 
code makes your moderator efforts more effortless. 
Although I have been reevaluating my views lately on the 
veracity of karmic redress, I think we woulda gotten
along famously in high school. Why this is a cool forum
must have something to do with you. My feeling is the
post limit rule keeps the oxygen from being sucked out 
of the room. Thanks.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Flaws in your statements:
1. First, you state a fact as if it were certain, saying it's not a 
belief.  Fine - you're just mistaken.  Lots of people have seen 
weather balloons thinking they were ET spaceships.  They were 
mistaken.  Your basic problem is using a particular word the big E 
that can be defined in a certain way but you are using only your own 
limited criteria.

2. Next, you keep on saying you're not attached to this and that.  
Big deal!  Neither are my coworkers attached to those things.
The flaw here is that if you conduct an adequate research of the 
statements of E'd people; (people assumed to be E'd such as Sakyamuni 
Buddha and certain successors, Ramana Maharshi, and SBS); you will 
find that such persons define E BOTH in terms of Presense AND what 
signs that have occurred on the way to E.
Then you say E can't be defined in terms of what goes on in the 
waking state.  Not quite true.  E can be defined in terms of Presence 
AND the subtle signs, some of which may take place in the waking or 
any other state.
Other than stating you once saw Guru Dev, what were the signs of your 
progress differentiating GC from CC, and UC from GC? 

3. Last for now - you say there are misguided notions about E. 
Right! - yours.  We aren't talking about beliefs, just the list of 
correct criteria which constitutes a definition.  You haven't met the 
criteria; and your list of criteria is rather short and doesn't match 
even MMY's. 


- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity 
no_reply@ 
   wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 
 sandiego108@
wrote:

 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer 
 through 
   some 
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?

So I assume that you would try to save him using the best 
 medical 
   care
possible.  What is the difference?

   
   What does any of this have to do with enlightenment?
  
  I don't know.  I am trying to figure out how a person who believes
  they are enlightened views the world. 
  
 
 Just like in so called real life, it varies from person to person. 
I 
 don't believe I am enlightened (in other words, why would I carry 
 around this belief? Beliefs must be catalogued and nurtured and 
 cross checked and validated-- what a waste of both time and life) 
 but I will answer your question for myself, personally, as if I am 
a 
 normal person ;-) (which, believe me I am-- eminently normal...)
 
 If I hypothetically had a son and he was dying of cancer, would I 
 try to save his life? Of course- who, except for some delusional 
7th 
 day adventists would allow their son to die without any attempt to 
 save him? btw, judging from this question it is a peculiar 
 perspective you have on enlightenment.
 
 Again, enlightenment is a normal state of functioning. it 
 encompasses all of the attributes that are typically associated 
with 
 human beings. And there are no rules to follow or ways that an 
 enlightened person acts, other than as they do. 
 
 There are some very misguided stories about enlightenment, 
 propogated by those attempting to make sense of the enlightened 
 experience from a standpoint of ignorance, of waking state. It 
 cannot be done. Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
 one, and forget about all of the speculation.

[FairfieldLife] re: agreements, et al

[sriswamijisadhaka]

It was 34 years ago this week at the age of 23 that I completed my TTC
in Zinal, Suisse. 
It started 6 months prior in Vittel, France and was the most
challenging time of my life to that point. Happily succumbing to the
indoctrination with no other cares but getting that promised
enlightenment. Being led to believe that I had what nobody in India,
Mother Bharat, had to offer.
I loved it, reveled in it, and fell for it hook, line and sinker.
What a stinker it turned out to be.

When I signed the agreement form, I did it without any judgement.

Toward the later years of my involvement with TMO when rates
skyrocketed, I felt I would honor the agreement and not teach someone
outside the movement until that man who so easily let the world think
he was a Maharishi died.

In that past 12 years, I have been fortunate beyond all imagination to
have been found by that True Living Guru, Sri Ganapati Sachchidananda
Swamiji, and have been shown what constitutes Dharma, Artha and Kama.
Dattatreya Incarnate.
There is little of His Divine life since childhood on this Earth that
is not documented. It is unblemished.
Unlike all except for one or two spoken of here.

With His blessings, after soaking up various major Vedic texts, and
the like, I found out that I was never qualified to teach anyone how
to meditate.
I don't think I could do it again, knowing the karmic implications I
have been shown.

The point was made in an earlier post about those karmic
responsiblities of a Guru. It isn't just this life. That Guru is
guiding us throughout all our incarnations.
Who am I to think I have what it takes to do such?

In terms of telling anyone the process of teaching and choosing,
Mantras, etc.
Why would I want to do that? 

Why would I want to potentially harm someone with this? Especially
when the effects of the mantras are NOT known.
They do not protect one, this IS known.

Their proponents' egos have been poisoned for decades by the TMO.

To the extent that even those who wish to have nothing to do with it
continue to reference bastardized knowledge that was given; and
continue to refer to that sudra, Shrivastava from Cheechli as
Maharishi. Describing and referencing states of consciousness by names
heretofore not specifically named in scripture.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude of attack and wishing harm to
others here by some posting to this Yahoo group.
IF one were to look more closely, would you think this is a celestial
or asuric nature?

As Prahlada, the greatest Asura devotee of Hari taught the children,
Give up your Asuric tendencies and surrender to the feet of the Lord.

A bit of a choppy ramble.
I just thought to chime in.
Someone just gave an invitation.

I am glad that man showed up in my life.

Jaya Guru Datta

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Neuroscience of Compassion

[Vaj]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:07 PM, satvadude108 wrote:


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


http://www.goodradioshows.org/peaceTalksL61.htm

Link


PEACE TALKS RADIO: The Neuroscience of Compassion




A post was made recently by a self-proclaimed enlightened
guy concerning the safety involved with weak buddhist
techniques relative to the more powerful TMSP. Words like
merely and weak pull my attention when observing
people defending their position.

About 12 weeks ago I began formal instruction in mindfulness
meditation. The instruction is completely secular but follows
the traditional steps. Several techniques are covered to assist
in integrating the practice into daily life. Sitting, standing, lying,
and walking positions are all used. Terminology is kept entirely
western with jargon such as samatha, vipassana, and metta
never being used.

My subjective experience during a lovingkindness metta
meditation was very similar, possibly identical, to the clearest
experiences I ever had during my Siddhi program. The
finest level of feeling was accessed. That amazed me and
I simply filed away that fact as I was not sure why or what that
comparison or experience meant.

With a short passage of time I realized that the similarity or
differentiation of those experiences was unimportant. I may
or may not look more formally for some correlation in the
future. Where I am, right here right now, is that it is a
curiosity but doesn't really matter.

Before the class had begun, I made a conscious intention to
suspend my practice of TM, begun 34 years ago, until the
class was over. I felt, right or wrong, that it would be best
not to meld the two until I was somewhat grounded in the
practice. My concern that the mantra would spontaneously
appear and redirect my meditation was needless. This
occurred only once and happened during a formal day long
retreat of silence and mindfulness. A gentle shifting of
the attention placed the mantra, an old friend, back on the
shelf for another day.

Since that time I have found that my meditations using TM
have been subjectively very nice. If fact, nicer than ever.
What this means and how I integrate this I am not sure.
I am sure, however, that there is something quite profound
with this mindfulness meditation and it is a path I will
continue. The Siddhi program, well, not so much. I walked
away from it before the millennium and never miss it.
No axe to grind, just one person's experience.

Misconceptions I held regarding this variety of meditation
are now, through experience, dispelled. The phenomenon
of mental straining and remaining of the surface level of
thought is not at all my experience. Quite the contrary.
The interesting part to me is seeing people get fundamentalist
on either side.


I recently helped a friend who used to do TM years ago, pick up  
meditation again. She decided to go the more traditional route and  
learn shamatha in the partially open-eyed style, from monks who had  
practiced it for years in a remote monastery. It was interesting to  
hear her excited feedback after diving in full time for two weeks.  
There came a point in the training where she made the decision to  
drop the mantra' and after that it did not reassert itself, which  
she had worried it would. She also was a bit put off by the idea of  
having the eyes partially opened, but eventually felt it emphasized a  
part of herself that was less egocentric and more allocentric. It  
removed her from the imagery and thought trains which were so  
internal. Favoring openness is the phrase we came up with. I also  
like Siegel's YODA: You Observe, Detach Automaticity.


 And so she found a new enthusiasm for meditation, something she  
found quite useable and is already talking about another retreat. As  
a therapist with many patients with PTSD, she's also quite interested  
in the research now being done (and mentioned in the above) with  
mindfulness being used for returning soldiers of war. It was  
inspiring to me that she immediately could see it as a way to help  
others heal rather than a way to withdraw within.

[FairfieldLife] Re: And miles to go before I sleep

[satvadude108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:29 AM, yifuxero wrote:
 
  Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening
 
 One of my all-time faves.
 
 Sal

 
Did you ever see the episode on the TV 
show The Sopranos where this poem
played a role? Pretty cool. 2nd or 3rd
season. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
 
  It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your *own*
  continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
  blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
 
 I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such accusations 
 to yourself.
  
  I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the result 
 is to
  become a shithead like you.
  
 Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and Sal 
 and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at all. 
 
 Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit you 
 thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you decide 
 you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn that 
 being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
 will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you return 
 from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents all 
 doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
 behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present and 
 future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
 difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly and 
 boldly and for all the world to hear:
 
 Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a shithead! 
 If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am going 
 to become a doctor!
 
 Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical inconsistency 
 in what all of you are saying? 
 
 Like I said, any excuse will do.


Your analogy is total bullshit, Jim. I see and have experienced and
look to and am devoted to Guru Dev, as he IS an example of an
*authentic* 'enlightened' being who, in his own words, represents the
Whole Thing, the Real Thing. You don't - not by any stretch of the
imagination. In fact, you come off as being at quite the other end of
the spectrum.

You're no different than any asshole with a new age spiel. And you're
STILL obviously incapable of acknowledging your *own*
continuously repulsive behavior or even have of having the ability to
perceive how you appear to others - and its consequences and implications.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
  wrote:
  
  
   It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your *own*
   continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
   blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
  
  I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such accusations 
  to yourself.
   
   I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the result 
  is to
   become a shithead like you.
   
  Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and Sal 
  and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at all. 
  
  Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit you 
  thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you decide 
  you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn that 
  being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
  will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you return 
  from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents all 
  doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
  behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present and 
  future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
  difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly and 
  boldly and for all the world to hear:
  
  Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a shithead! 
  If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am going 
  to become a doctor!
  
  Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical inconsistency 
  in what all of you are saying? 
  
  Like I said, any excuse will do.
 
 
 I know you get baited frequently, so I am not too bothered by the
 reactions you might have to the posts of some others.  But are you
 saying that an enlightened person can be a shit head?  I ask this
 question of people because it just does not fit in with my world view.
  I just cant believe in an enlightenment without goodness.  And I
 can't believe in tortured views of goodness where some purported
 enlightened person treats another badly and it is rationalized away as
 being good for them.


Amen, Ruth.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling Judy from the Other Side

[satvadude108]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Rick Archer wrote:
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Judith Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:39 AM
   To: Rick Archer
   Subject: RE: Over the Limit?
  
   Rick--
  
No, I haven't suspended you. I guess Barry missed the post in  
which I said I wasn't going to.
  
   Actually you didn't say that. You quoted my email but didn't say
   anything about not suspending me.
  
  
  Actually here's what Rick actually said:
  
  Bhairtu's post counting thingy is now the official determiner of  
  post totals. Next time he posts it, if Judy or anyone is over the  
  limit, even by one, I'll suspend them for a week (or more if it's a  
  repeated offense). No one has an excuse for accidentally overposting  
  now. Bhairtu's tally makes the totals very clear to all.
  
  Unfortunately, it does look like your over by one post Judy.
  
  I know, counting to 50 can be SO difficult.
 
 53. 
 
 Judy is trying to pull off not only making 
 51 posts during the week and getting away with
 it, she's making even *more* posts this week, 
 via Rick. 
 
 Honestly, I think that if we're all on this
 forum when she dies, she'll find some way
 to come back from the grave to finish any
 lingering arguments, and to get in the
 last word.
 
 :-)


Garlands of garlic and a big wooden stake 
solve that TurquoiseB. She has, ah, issues.

Try as I may, I just can't get that Curtis 
equanimity vibe going toward her for long. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
  wrote:
  
  
   It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your 
*own*
   continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
   blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
  
  I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such 
accusations 
  to yourself.
   
   I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the 
result 
  is to
   become a shithead like you.
   
  Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and 
Sal 
  and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at 
all. 
  
  Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit 
you 
  thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you 
decide 
  you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn 
that 
  being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
  will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you 
return 
  from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents 
all 
  doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
  behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present 
and 
  future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
  difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly 
and 
  boldly and for all the world to hear:
  
  Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a 
shithead! 
  If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am 
going 
  to become a doctor!
  
  Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical 
inconsistency 
  in what all of you are saying? 
  
  Like I said, any excuse will do.
 
 
 I know you get baited frequently, so I am not too bothered by the
 reactions you might have to the posts of some others.  But are you
 saying that an enlightened person can be a shit head?  I ask this
 question of people because it just does not fit in with my world 
view.
  I just cant believe in an enlightenment without goodness.  And I
 can't believe in tortured views of goodness where some purported
 enlightened person treats another badly and it is rationalized 
away as
 being good for them.

All I can speak from is my own experience, so I personally have not 
met any enlightened people, including myself, that I would think of 
as shit heads. Nor do I think that rationalizing bad behavior is 
anything more than that-- we all gotta own our stuff, including me. 

As I said before to great consternation from my detractors, everyone 
gets exactly what they deserve. And this goes for anyone who would 
deliberately cause another person harm, under whatever guise.

Thanks for asking.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gay Marriage In California

[John]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
  To All:
  
  The vedic scriptures allow marriage to a tree...
 
 Gives whole new meaning to the term sporting wood.
 http://users.lmi.net/sonyarap/arborerecta/arborimages/mantree.jpeg
 
  ..., a clay pot, and even allow marriage 
  by abduction, as Krishna did.  However, the scriptures 
  do not recognize any marriages between human couples of the same 
  sex.  The rationale behind these injunctions is that marriage is 
  for the procreation of children.
 
 Yup, you're sure gonna procreate a flock of 
 young'uns by marrying a tree or a clay pot. :-)

Barry, it should be explained that marriage to a tree or a clay pot 
is method devised by the rishis to avoid divorces or failed 
marriages.  By analyzing a person's jyotish chart, the jyotishi or 
astrologer can determine whether the person will have a successful 
marriage.  If not, the person is advised to marry a tree or a clay 
pot in order to cleanse away the marriage affliction, technically 
called Kujadosha (Mars affliction).  After this ritual, then the 
person can safely marry the woman or man who is intended for marriage.


  There's a story in Shrimad Bhagavatam, also, which states that 
  Indra, the king of the demigods and the senses, have been known 
  to put on a ruse as a guru and rishi to confuse the people in 
  the world. He does this to make sure that human beings do not 
  get far advanced in their understanding of reality and to ensure 
  his power as the king of the demigods.  Thus, we see many false 
  prophets and wise men who proclaim to have the path to Reality.
  
  In this regard, it is possible that the California judges who 
  allowed gay marriages in the state may have been influenced by 
  the subtle reasonings of Indra, the king of the senses.
 
 Ok, since the subject has come up lately, 
 what IS it with homophobia in human beings? 
 And with their tendency to justify that 
 homophobia with their scriptures?

There are reasons why the prophets from the Bible and Vedas have 
written their opinions about sexual relations and marriage.  IMO, one 
of the reasons was to ensure the continuation of the human race.  We 
as humans of today who are searching for the right path should 
consider their advice.

 I mean, what is the difference between some
 guy in our time who is terrified that one day 
 he'll spring a woodie in the locker room while 
 eyeing his tennis partner's bum, and the
 authors of the so-called scriptures, who
 were probably similarly terrified of the same 
 thing happening to them as they bathed with 
 other devotees in the Ganges?

This may have happened, but it may not be right.  MMY has coined the 
phrase mistake of the intellect.  This phrase appears to be 
applicable in this case.

 Gay marriage REALLY seems to push the homo-
 phobes' buttons. Me, I'm kinda for it. My ex-
 girlfriend had a relative who was gay, who died 
 last year. He had been effectively married to 
 his partner for OVER 35 YEARS! They were both 
 bankers and pillars of their community and 
 respected and loved by one and all, straight 
 or gay. And they were clearly *in love*, enough 
 to stay with each other through thick and thin
 for longer than most of the people here have
 been meditating. 
 
 How many straight marriages do you know of 
 that have lasted that long? Be honest now.

Their partnership is remarkable to have lasted that long.  No doubt 
about that.

 And yet the homophobes point to their Bibles
 and their scriptures and make grunting noises
 about how God -- the *same* God that they often
 define as God is love -- hates gays, and hates
 gay marriage even more.
 
 WTF?

This is one of the reasons why the gay Episcopal bishop (Eugene 
Robertson) is creating such an uproar in the Anglican community.  
Because of his sexual preference, the Anglican community is in the 
verge of a schism.

 Who ARE these terrified little pissants that
 they presume to tell others that they aren't
 allowed to commit their lives to another person,
 just because that person has the same convex
 or concave configuration that they do?

Your asking a very difficult question.  People are still trying to 
find the right answer.  That's the reason why its creating a divide 
in all countries of the world.


 John shoots *himself* in his homophobic foot
 above by saying that the very scriptures he
 cites as authorities against gay marriage
 allow marriage to trees and clay pots. Presum-
 ably John would have *no problem* with a guy
 taking his clay pot wife out to dinner, or
 with a guy humping his oaken wife in a public
 park. After all, the scriptures say it's Ok, 
 so it IS Ok.

I've explained the reason for the apparent disconnect in reasoning as 
shown above.


 I think it's appropriate to cite a few quotes
 by that great bugger Oscar Wilde on the sub-
 ject of love, marriage, and other such follies.
 He was the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gay Marriage In California

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 On Jun 8, 2008, at 11:29 PM, John wrote:
 
 
  The vedic scriptures allow marriage to a tree, a clay pot, and 
even
  allow marriage by abduction, as Krishna did.  However, the 
scriptures
  do not recognize any marriages between human couples of the same
  sex.  The rationale behind these injunctions is that marriage is 
for
  the procreation of children.
 
 And you can procreate with a clay pot or a tree?
 Wow, no wonder they wanted to keep this from getting out.

Sal, I've explained this apparent paradox to Barry in my response to 
his objections.  Please, read it.


  There's a story in Shrimad Bhagavatam, also, which states that 
Indra,
  the king of the demigods and the senses, have been known to put 
on a
  ruse as a guru and rishi to confuse the people in the world.  He 
does
  this to make sure that human beings do not get far advanced in 
their
  understanding of reality and to ensure his power as the king of 
the
  demigods.  Thus, we see many false prophets and wise men who 
proclaim
  to have the path to Reality.
 
  In this regard, it is possible that the California judges who 
allowed
  gay marriages in the state may have been influenced by the subtle
  reasonings of Indra, the king of the senses.
 
 They also may have been influenced by the subtle reasonings of basic
 fairness and live-and-let-liveness.

This debate is going to continue whether we like it or not.  Keep a 
close watch on a California ballot measure to ban gay marriages this 
coming November.

We can argue the pros and cons of this issue.  But I'm afraid the 
task is daunting and we definitely do not have time to resolve it 
here in this forum.








 Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

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

 Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
  one, and forget about all of the speculation.
 
 
 Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
 
 This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.
 
 Her question comes out of your response to the question: could you 
use
 magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 
 
 So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
some
 mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
 
 This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
 save him, so why not the normal magical powers of enlightenment? 
 And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical 
knowledge of
 family members in the past so this question really does not 
represent
 a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
 magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
 nonexistent to me.

Well the magical powers as you call them I have developed have not 
been tried on cancer. I have dealt successfully with back injuries 
and headaches-- stuff like that. Would I trust my magical powers to 
heal someone of cancer vs. medical care? No way, though I would not 
be able to resist using my magical powers to look around inside 
their body and see if anything helpful occured to me. Magical powers-
- cmoe on-- straight out of some ooga booga movie from the 50's...
 
 I don't believe I am enlightened 
 
 This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to 
sell a
 belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the 
past. 
 In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I 
immediately
 check my wallet.

Did you read that right? I said I *don't* believe I am enlightened, 
any more than you believe you are a blues player.
 
 I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to 
answer
 questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
 inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
 enlightened.  

Yeah the language kind of lends itself to that conclusion. Oh well.

Actually any condescension comes from those who believe 
enlightenment is something special. I have never said that it was, 
just that permanent enlightenment is available to anyone, even 
Barry, yixefero, John dorflex, Sal, and all the other doubters here- 
my, what a thought crime that is! And, gasp, if they are dilligent, 
they may actually , gasp, achieve the Goal in this lifetime!!! Oh my 
god, another thought crime!

 But once we get past that weirdness I enjoy these posts.

great!

  It makes me rethink the whole proposal of what enlightenment 
might be
 and if anyone at all is in such a state and even if it is a good 
thing
 at all.  

I like it.

There are so many assumptions about this state from
 traditional literature that discussing it this way helps me become
 conscious of the assumptions. 

at least centuries worth of assumptions probably, and most of them 
wrong...

 A very interesting topic and I'm sure
 we have not heard the end of it despite your advice. 

My advice was nothing more than common sense- don't speculate too 
much about something you are trying to do. I find action with its 
resultant consequences far superior to speculation in making 
progress. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Seven reasons Barry is most likely gay

[satvadude108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ 
  wrote:
  snip
   5. His decades long anger at Judy S., a woman he feels deep
   resentment towards. Not that she posts anything different
   than a lot of guys here, but she is a woman...Perhaps his
   attempts to make Judy his confidante, his fag hag failed
   long ago, and he cannot forgive her for it?
  
  Jim, I don't appreciate being used as an accessory in
  an attempt to insult someone by accusing them of being
  gay. I'm astonished to find you using such an unworthy
  tactic. It doesn't surprise me when Barry and Vaj do
  it, but I wouldn't have thought you were also homophobic.
 
 
 I wonder what's worse: being homophobic or humorphobic?


I bet that could be answered by the guy you owe $20.

Only one of these posts was intended to be humorous 
but all 3 are hilarious. Damn, this place was wired
yesterday. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
  wrote:
  
  
   It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your 
*own*
   continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
   blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
  
  I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such 
accusations 
  to yourself.
   
   I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the 
result 
  is to
   become a shithead like you.
   
  Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and 
Sal 
  and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at 
all. 
  
  Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit 
you 
  thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you 
decide 
  you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn 
that 
  being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
  will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you 
return 
  from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents 
all 
  doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
  behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present 
and 
  future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
  difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly 
and 
  boldly and for all the world to hear:
  
  Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a 
shithead! 
  If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am 
going 
  to become a doctor!
  
  Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical 
inconsistency 
  in what all of you are saying? 
  
  Like I said, any excuse will do.
 
 
 Your analogy is total bullshit, Jim. 

Wow, what a surprise...

I see and have experienced and
 look to and am devoted to Guru Dev, as he IS an example of an
 *authentic* 'enlightened' being who, in his own words, 
represents the
 Whole Thing, the Real Thing. You don't - not by any stretch of the
 imagination. In fact, you come off as being at quite the other end 
of
 the spectrum.
 
 You're no different than any asshole with a new age spiel. And 
you're
 STILL obviously incapable of acknowledging your *own*
 continuously repulsive behavior or even have of having the ability 
to
 perceive how you appear to others - and its consequences and 
implications.

I am clearly aware of my behavior on this forum, my perception to 
others, its consequences, and its implications. I am not blaming 
anyone here for anything. Unlike you, who apparently want to blame  
me for your own lack of spiritual progress.

Putting the cart before the horse John and moodmaking isn't going to 
get you where you want to go. if I were you, I'd grovel on my hands 
and knees at the feet of Guru Dev, and beg him to deliver you from 
the sea of ignorance you wallow in, your delusion, and the false 
path you are on. That's what I would do if I were you John. A little 
free advice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
 Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
 because we are his creation. 

You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
simply saying that none of us perceives the
world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
are changed by our own individual consciousness.

No things and event are perceived exactly the 
same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
when we perceive them.

We perceive qualities of things, we do not
perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
things and events in our own consciousness.

There is no 'creation' - things and events are
never 'created' - you can't create something out
of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.

Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
their being known. Several people cannot see 
the same object and see it exactly as it is. 

[FairfieldLife] tenets of Sant Mat

[yifuxero]

from Wiki:

Technically speaking Sant Mat practice involves listening to the 
Inner Sound, also known in the Holy Bible as 'The Word' or 'logos' 
contemplating the Inner Light, and (eventually) leaving the human 
body at will - a practice sometimes referred to as dying while 
living. The principal intent is to awaken the Soul and unite it with 
God.[9] Sant Mat is a practical and not a theoretical investigation.
[10]

Contemporary Sant Mat movements claim to be different in a radical 
sense from other disciplines or kinds of knowledge which can be 
taught. It claims to be a meta-knowledge or method of going beyond 
knowledge and deprecates the mind and mental processes, at all times 
describing a dichotomy between the mind and the soul, in which the 
mind is only a negative copy or imitation of the soul.[11] The mind 
is to become still and quiet so that the soul can begin to experience 
itself.[12] The soul has its own internal sources of knowledge, and 
when properly connected to its inner sources, no outer education or 
knowledge is required or desired.[citation needed]

The second essential tenet is the mystical role of the Sound Current:

Prajapatir vai idam-agree asit Tasya vak dvitiya asit Vak vai Paramam 
Brahma

(from Vedas)

In the beginning was Prajapati (the Creator), With Him was the Vak 
(the Word), And the Vak (the Word) was verily the Supreme Brahma.

Proponents compare this with the verses of John 1 John to assert 
their special use of comparative religion (seeking the common thread 
in all religions and esoteric phenomena). Naam or Word [2], written 
by Sant Kirpal Singh, explores this theme. It asserts that the Sound 
Current is the esoteric form of God which is available to human 
beings. [13] The Guru, who is a human being, has merged with the 
Sound Current in such a manner that he is a living manifestation of 
it (the Word made flesh). [14] However, not just the Guru can achieve 
this, but all human beings are inherently privileged in this way [14]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment, Narcissism, and the Abuser Personality

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
   wrote:
   
   
It's apparent that you are incapable of acknowledging your 
 *own*
continuously repulsive behavior, Jim. Rather, you appear to try
blaming others for seeing it and pointing it out.
   
   I am blaming no one here, for anything. Please keep such 
 accusations 
   to yourself.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to be 'enlightened' if the 
 result 
   is to
become a shithead like you.

   Yes, any excuse will do John, for you and Barry and xifero and 
 Sal 
   and all of the others thinking in the same way. Any excuse at 
 all. 
   
   Its like you wanted to be a doctor once, an idealistic pursuit 
 you 
   thought, so you go to a doctor and you talk to her, and you 
 decide 
   you don't like her very much, and along the way you also learn 
 that 
   being a doctor is an awful lot of hard work, and dedication, and 
   will change you in ways that you didn't expect, and so you 
 return 
   from talking to the doctor and you decide that she represents 
 all 
   doctors that exist, and all that have ever existed, that her 
   behavior is an accurate template of all doctors, past, present 
 and 
   future, and based on that, and what you have found out about the 
   difficulties you will face becoming a doctor, declare, proudly 
 and 
   boldly and for all the world to hear:
   
   Hey Everybody! I just met with the doctor, and she is a 
 shithead! 
   If that's what it means to be a doctor, there is no way I am 
 going 
   to become a doctor!
   
   Gee, am I crazy, or is there just a wee bit of logical 
 inconsistency 
   in what all of you are saying? 
   
   Like I said, any excuse will do.
  
  
  Your analogy is total bullshit, Jim. 
 
 Wow, what a surprise...
 
 I see and have experienced and
  look to and am devoted to Guru Dev, as he IS an example of an
  *authentic* 'enlightened' being who, in his own words, 
 represents the
  Whole Thing, the Real Thing. You don't - not by any stretch of the
  imagination. In fact, you come off as being at quite the other end 
 of
  the spectrum.
  
  You're no different than any asshole with a new age spiel. And 
 you're
  STILL obviously incapable of acknowledging your *own*
  continuously repulsive behavior or even have of having the ability 
 to
  perceive how you appear to others - and its consequences and 
 implications.
 
 I am clearly aware of my behavior on this forum, my perception to 
 others, its consequences, and its implications. I am not blaming 
 anyone here for anything. 



Then it must be perfectly alright with you to be, and to be seen as, a
classic asshole.


 Unlike you, who apparently want to blame  
 me for your own lack of spiritual progress.


You must be losing your mind. My own 'spiritual progress' has
absolutely nothing to do with you, nor have I ever suggested that it
has, nor do I believe does it have to do with anyone else's - except
in your own mind and except perhaps to turn people off from the
spiritual path by your shameful example.


 Putting the cart before the horse John and moodmaking isn't going to 
 get you where you want to go. 


Your making false assertions about what I see, experience and express
only further confirms to me that you're totally full of shit - a
transparent fraud.


if I were you, I'd grovel on my hands 
 and knees at the feet of Guru Dev, and beg him to deliver you from 
 the sea of ignorance you wallow in, your delusion, and the false 
 path you are on. That's what I would do if I were you John. A little 
 free advice.


Good Lord ...a mad man as well!


==NOTE: Notice how Jim frequently attempts to avoid facing and
admitting his own faults by trying to make up faults in his critics.==

[FairfieldLife] special message from maharishi

[michael]

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2396188/7465067



  __
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail.
Dem pfiffigeren Posteingang.
http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rising Insanity of the Age of Enlightment

[ruthsimplicity]

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

 
 And whether they go out of their way to actively
 *create* suffering in others. To wit, the claim
 recently by one poster that she's highly empathetic,
 balanced against her often-stated desire to make 
 other posters feel bad. She literally *revels* in
 the supposed pain and anguish she causes her debate 
 opponents to feel. If she were really empathetic, 
 wouldn't making them feel bad make *her* feel bad 
 as well?
 
Turq, the interesting things you have to say from time to time are
diluted by your need to tease Judy.  

Re: [FairfieldLife] re: agreements, et al

[Peter]

--- sriswamijisadhaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 and
 continue to refer to that sudra, Shrivastava from
 Cheechli as
 Maharishi. 

Yeah, just like my second grade teacher, what an
idiot. Why did she teach me all those simple things?




 
 
 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]
 
 
 



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ruth wrote:
  Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
  because we are his creation. 
 
 You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
 simply saying that none of us perceives the
 world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
 are changed by our own individual consciousness.
 
 No things and event are perceived exactly the 
 same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
 exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
 when we perceive them.
 
 We perceive qualities of things, we do not
 perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
 fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
 things and events in our own consciousness.
 
 There is no 'creation' - things and events are
 never 'created' - you can't create something out
 of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
 we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.
 
 Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
 their being known. Several people cannot see 
 the same object and see it exactly as it is.

Well, we will have to hear from Jim.  My impression of what he has
said seemed a bit more literal than what you are saying.  

I am not of the school which believes no objects exist independently
of their being known.  But of course people's perceptions are colored
by a variety of things.  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is blue,
cold is cold and a tree falling in the woods makes noise even if you
are not there.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: special message from maharishi

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2396188/7465067
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2396188/7465067



Yeah, this Rajah Dean Dodril looks like a real cult leader.

But then again every Rajah wearing his tinfoil hat looks like a cult
leader.

object width=512 height=323param name=movie
value=http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.2
http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.2 
/param name=allowFullScreen value=true /param name=flashVars
value=id=7465067vid=2396188lang=en-usintl=usthumbUrl=http%3A//us.i1\
.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/2803/62655990.jpegembed=1
/embed
src=http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.2
http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.2.2 
type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=512 height=323
allowFullScreen=true
flashVars=id=7465067vid=2396188lang=en-usintl=usthumbUrl=http%3A//u\
s.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/2803/62655990.jpegembed=\
1 /embed/object















 __
 Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail.
 Dem pfiffigeren Posteingang.
 http://de.overview.mail.yahoo.com

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[Bhairitu]

Yahoo Groups Post Counter
=
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun  7 00:00:00 2008
End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 14 00:00:00 2008
-- Searching...

401 messages as of (UTC) Tue Jun 10 00:22:15 2008
Member   Posts

authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]  51
sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]45
TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]37
Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]  24
shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 21
ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]16
do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED]  16
Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]   15
Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]13
Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED]12
Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]   11
Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9
Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]   9
Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED]8
off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED]  8
satvadude108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  8
sgrayatlarge [EMAIL PROTECTED]  7
yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED]  7
Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]6
Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5
boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED]4
bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED]  4
mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED]4
mrfishey2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  4
gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3
R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED]3
feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED]3
Marcelo [EMAIL PROTECTED]3
Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED]3
John [EMAIL PROTECTED]3
cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2
amarnath [EMAIL PROTECTED]   2
tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED]  1
Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]1
benjaminccollins [EMAIL PROTECTED]   1
Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED]   1
vlodrop108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]1
vedoham [EMAIL PROTECTED]   1
Jeffrey N Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]1
paul mccarthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1
sriswamijisadhaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]1
michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]1
posters: 44
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com

[FairfieldLife] The time has come!

[tertonzeno]

Time Has Come Today - The Chambers Brothers

Time has come today 
Young hearts can go their way 
Can't put it off another day 
I don't care what others say 
They say we don't listen anyway 
Time has come today
(Hey) 

Oh
The rules have changed today (Hey) 
I have no place to stay (Hey) 
I'm thinking about the subway (Hey) 
My love has flown away (Hey) 
My tears have come and gone (Hey) 
Oh my Lord, I have to roam (Hey) 
I have no home (Hey) 
I have no home (Hey) 

Now the time has come (Time) 
There's no place to run (Time) 
I might get burned up by the sun (Time) 
But I had my fun (Time) 
I've been loved and put aside (Time) 
I've been crushed by the tumbling tide (Time) 
And my soul has been psychedelicized (Time) 

(Time)
Now the time has come (Time) 
There are things to realize (Time) 
Time has come today (Time) 
Time has come today (Time) 

Time [x11]

Oh
Now the time has come (Time) 
There's no place to run (Time) 
I might get burned up by the sun (Time) 
But I had my fun (Time) 
I've been loved and put aside (Time) 
I've been crushed by tumbling tide (Time) 
And my soul has been psychedelicized (Time) 

(Time) 
Now the time has come (Time) 
There are things to realize (Time) 
Time has come today (Time) 
Time has come today (Time) 

Time [x4]
Yeah

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

  All perceptions are changed by our 
  own individual consciousness.
 
Ruth wrote: 
 I am not of the school which believes 
 no objects exist independently
 of their being known. 

Maybe so, Ruth, but don't forget about 
the 'constructed character of knowing':

Objects are not known directly; that is, 
there is something between the objects 
percieved and our knowledge of them. 

The point is, we do not percieve objects
exactly as they are without distortion 
by any intervening medium.

Objects are not known directly, but only 
through the medium of consciousness.

 But of course people's perceptions are 
 colored by a variety of things. 

 Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
 blue, cold is cold... 

There's no absolute 'blue' - a blind
person can't see the sky. The perception
of 'cold' is realtive to the perciever.

It is obvious that different people may 
not see the same object, as it is, but
may perceive different objects when 
confronted by the same stimulus source.

 ...and a tree falling in the woods 
 makes noise even if you are not there.

There's no sound unless there's a 
sentient being to percieve it. 

No objects which are known exist 
independently of their being known. 

Objects cannot endure or continue to 
exist without being experienced by 
anyone. 

Knowing the objects creates them. 
Objects, including their qualities, 
are affected merely by being known. 

Knowledge of objects changes their 
nature. 

You can read more here:

We are perfectly justified in 
maintaining that only what is within 
ourselves can be immediately and 
directly perceived, and that only my 
own existence can be the object of a 
mere perception... 

Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
 willytex@ wrote:
 
  Ruth wrote:
   Sandiego can say anything to any of us 
   because we are his creation. 
  
  You may have misunderstood Jim, Ruth. Jim was
  simply saying that none of us perceives the
  world in exactly the same way. All perceptions
  are changed by our own individual consciousness.
  
  No things and event are perceived exactly the 
  same by everyone. And nobody perceives things
  exactly as they are. Things are changed by us
  when we perceive them.
  
  We perceive qualities of things, we do not
  perceive wholes. Things are changed just by the
  fact that they are perceived. We each perceive
  things and events in our own consciousness.
  
  There is no 'creation' - things and events are
  never 'created' - you can't create something out
  of nothing. What we perceive are appearances -
  we do not apprehend the thing-in-itself.
  
  Simply put, no objects exist independently of 
  their being known. Several people cannot see 
  the same object and see it exactly as it is.
 
 Well, we will have to hear from Jim.  My impression of what he has
 said seemed a bit more literal than what you are saying.  
 
 I am not of the school which believes no objects exist 
independently
 of their being known.  But of course people's perceptions are 
colored
 by a variety of things.  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
blue,
 cold is cold and a tree falling in the woods makes noise even if 
you
 are not there.  
 

My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of 
holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me. 
This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have 
not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely 
more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I 
experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it. 
And far more accurate in my experience.

So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did 
it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To 
lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too 
much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it 
did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation 
of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep 
things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief 
that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on 
what I am achieving in the moment. 

After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is 
all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I 
look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground, 
but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps 
it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain 
the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the 
ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an 
assumption, unless I choose to.

When I leave the forest, does the tree remain? I don't know. My 
memory of the tree will remain, for awhile, as long as I want it to 
or need it to, to fulfill some contextual need, like a picture I 
draw later from memory, or not.

This is what I mean when I say that I create my Universe; everyone 
creates their Universe.



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[curtisdeltablues]

 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

Your description reminds me of Tom Hank's character on SNL:


Jingle:
Mr. Short-Term Memory.
He shouldn't have stood under that pear tree.
Now there's just no remedy.
He'll frustrate you so
But he'll never know.
Because he's Mr. Short-Term Memory.

Announcer: Tonight's episode: The Blind Date.

[ segue into Mr. Short-Term Memory in a fancy restaurant sitting at a
table with his blind date ]

Mr. Short-Term Memory: So, the boss walks into the office, and Bill's
got his sweater on over his head, and.. [ laughs ]

Date: [ laughing ] Bill sounds like a pretty funny guy!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Bill who?

Date: The guy you work with.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, Bill? How do you know Bill?

Date: I don't know Bill.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, it's too bad, he's a pretty funny guy! So,
you want to guy out to dinner?

Date: What do you mean? We're at dinner.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, great, I'm hungry!

[ Waiter walks up with a bottle of wine ]

Waiter: Here you are, Sir.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey, what's with the wine?

Waiter: It's the Bordeaux you just ordered.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: I didn't order any wine! If this is one of
those kind of places where they bring you wine that you didn't order,
and then put it on your bill, I'm not biting!

Date: Jeff, you ordered the wine.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh! [ takes the wine and pours it ]

Date: You know, it's kind of funny that you're in advertising..
because my dad used to be in advertising. When I was little, he'd try
his ideas on me, and..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Excuse me.. Miss? You're welcome to sit here
and everything.. but I think introductions are in order.

Date: Jeff. It's me. Caroline. Your date.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ checks her out ] Ohhh, hey, alright! So,
what's your name?

Waiter: [ returns with menus ] Here are your menus. Our Special this
evening is Medallions of Veal smothered in a wine and mushroom sauce.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ examines menu ] Is there a Special tonight?

Waiter: I just told you the Special: Medallions of Veal..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Look, just tell me about the Special, please? I
don't want to hear all this babbling about Medallions of Veal - I
don't even see it on the menu!

Waiter: I'm.. sorry, Sir.. there are no Specials.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Well.. okay. I'll have the Poached Salmon.

Date: I'll have the same.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey! Poached Salmon! I'll have that! [ Waiter
tries to take the menu ] Excuse me, but I think we're going to need
these menus to order the food!

Waiter: [ takes menu ] Uh.. I'll get you a fresh one.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. Wow. Classy place. I hope they have Poached
Salmon!

Date: Yeah. Well, anyway.. you know, I used to think of going into
advertising myself.. but.. once I got into publishing, well..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Excuse me. This is very interesting, but I
don't know who you are, and frankly, it's making me just a little..

Date: Caroline! Caroline! I'm your date! Caroline!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. [ checks her out ] Hey, alright, we're
doing okay! Now, if we could just get a waiter.. [ grabs a busboy ]
Excuse me, Busboy? Could you introduce us to a waiter, please? I'm
sure he must be a delightful individual, we'd love to meet him! Thank you!

Date: Jeff, please don't make a scene..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Well, I'm just trying to get food before.. [
looks at his watch ] Hey! Look at this watch!

Date: Jeff.. it's yours.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ smiles ] Thank you!

Waiter: [ re-enters, and places the food on the table ] And here you are..

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh, boy.. listen, you're obviously new. I don't
know if you realize it or not, but you've just served food to people
who have barely sat down! A menu would be nice for a start!

Waiter: [ disgusted ] I'm sorry, Sir, there's no need to see a menu.
We only serve one dish at this restaurant - Poached Salmon.

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Hey, Poached Salmon! I love it! [ starts eating ]

Date: Jeff, have you ever seen anybody about your.. condition?

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ grows uncomfortable as he chews ] There's
something in my mouth! There's something in my mouth! [ spits out his
Poached Salmon onto his napkin ] There was food in my mouth!

Date: It's just your Poached Salmon!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: Oh. I love Poached Salmon! [ pierces the chewed
food with his fork ]

Date: Don't eat it!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: [ notices the chewed food in his napkin ] Wait
a minute, I'm not going to eat this! This has already been in
somebody's mouth! Oh, this is a great restaurant! Serves
already-been-chewed food!

Date: Just eat it, Jeff!

Mr. Short-Term Memory: No way!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

--Re: the following statement (below):
 
There's no sound unless there's a
sentient being to percieve it.

 This is not in agreement with the latest theories in physics. The 
universe itself is the sentient being.



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   All perceptions are changed by our 
   own individual consciousness.
  
 Ruth wrote: 
  I am not of the school which believes 
  no objects exist independently
  of their being known. 
 
 Maybe so, Ruth, but don't forget about 
 the 'constructed character of knowing':
 
 Objects are not known directly; that is, 
 there is something between the objects 
 percieved and our knowledge of them. 
 
 The point is, we do not percieve objects
 exactly as they are without distortion 
 by any intervening medium.
 
 Objects are not known directly, but only 
 through the medium of consciousness.
 
  But of course people's perceptions are 
  colored by a variety of things. 
 
  Nevertheless, I still believe blue is 
  blue, cold is cold... 
 
 There's no absolute 'blue' - a blind
 person can't see the sky. The perception
 of 'cold' is realtive to the perciever.
 
 It is obvious that different people may 
 not see the same object, as it is, but
 may perceive different objects when 
 confronted by the same stimulus source.
 
  ...and a tree falling in the woods 
  makes noise even if you are not there.
 
 There's no sound unless there's a 
 sentient being to percieve it. 
 
 No objects which are known exist 
 independently of their being known. 
 
 Objects cannot endure or continue to 
 exist without being experienced by 
 anyone. 
 
 Knowing the objects creates them. 
 Objects, including their qualities, 
 are affected merely by being known. 
 
 Knowledge of objects changes their 
 nature. 
 
 You can read more here:
 
 We are perfectly justified in 
 maintaining that only what is within 
 ourselves can be immediately and 
 directly perceived, and that only my 
 own existence can be the object of a 
 mere perception... 
 
 Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
 A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Excellent article on the first Mrs McCain

[Richard J. Williams]

Sal Sunshine wrote:
 Excellent article on the first Mrs McCain

So, it's settled.

He is the best man for president. 
- Carol McCain

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[sandiego108]

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

  So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets 
cold 
  and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms 
up 
  because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer 
whether 
  it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is 
cold 
  outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?
 
 Your description reminds me of Tom Hank's character on SNL:
 
 
 Jingle:
 Mr. Short-Term Memory.
 He shouldn't have stood under that pear tree.
 Now there's just no remedy.
 He'll frustrate you so
 But he'll never know.
 Because he's Mr. Short-Term Memory.

funny-- except the guy sounds retarded- no skill in action. 
Otherwise, spot on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[Richard J. Williams]

 There's no sound unless there's a
 sentient being to percieve it.

yifuxero wrote: 
 This is not in agreement with the latest 
 theories in physics. 

Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
metaphysical discussion, not a physics
theory.

 The universe itself is the sentient
 being.
 
You are assumng that there is a universe
'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
In dreams we see universes out there; in
dreams we can run and jump and consult 
our friends. 

There is nothing in the waking state that 
could not be experienced in a dream.

And it all depends on what you mean by
'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
who can think and percieve. If there is
no one around when a tree falls, then
there is no one to think or percieve.
 
  We are perfectly justified in 
  maintaining that only what is within 
  ourselves can be immediately and 
  directly perceived, and that only my 
  own existence can be the object of a 
  mere perception... 
  
  Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
  A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Huzur Sawan Singh's instructions

[yifuxero]

 As Huzur Sawan Singh tells one of his Western disciples: When you 
sit [in meditation]... see that the mind is at rest and does not go 
out and unnecessarily think about other things. When, by Repetition 
of the Names [Simran] with attention fixed in the eye focus, you have 
become unconscious of the body below the eyes, then your attention 
will catch the Sound Current. Select the Sound resembling the church 
bell and discard all other sounds. Then slowly your soul will leave 
the body and collect in the eyes and become strong. Then fix your 
attention in the biggest star, so much that you forget everything 
else except the Sound and the star. Then this star will burst and you 
will see what is within and beyond. After crossing the star you will 
have to cross the sun and the moon [inner manifestations of light]. 
Then you will see the Form of the Master. When that Form becomes 
steady it will reply. This Form will reply to all of your enquiries 
and guide you to higher stages... These stars are of the first sky 
only, and Hindu philosophers will have spoken of seven skies [in 
universes of elevating degrees]... After crossing the star, the sun 
and the moon you will see that Form which will never leave you, not 
even for a moment. Finally, the soul, unencumbered by any bodies 
(gross, astral or causal), will merge with the Supreme, achieving a 
state that defies description. The drop merges in the ocean; the wave 
flows back to the sea; the I reunites with its source.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[yifuxero]

---the flaw in your reasoning is the separation of  entities that you 
call sentient from others.  This is an artificial separation. 
Again, the universe as a whole is the one.


 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  There's no sound unless there's a
  sentient being to percieve it.
 
 yifuxero wrote: 
  This is not in agreement with the latest 
  theories in physics. 
 
 Maybe so, but the subject of this thread
 is Byron Katies 'Awakening' - that's a
 metaphysical discussion, not a physics
 theory.
 
  The universe itself is the sentient
  being.
  
 You are assumng that there is a universe
 'out there' - but you could be dreaming.
 In dreams we see universes out there; in
 dreams we can run and jump and consult 
 our friends. 
 
 There is nothing in the waking state that 
 could not be experienced in a dream.
 
 And it all depends on what you mean by
 'sentient being'. Sentience means anyone
 who can think and percieve. If there is
 no one around when a tree falls, then
 there is no one to think or percieve.
  
   We are perfectly justified in 
   maintaining that only what is within 
   ourselves can be immediately and 
   directly perceived, and that only my 
   own existence can be the object of a 
   mere perception... 
   
   Immanuel Kant, 'Critique of Pure Reason'
   A367 f.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Kucinich Presents Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

[feste37]

I've been watching it. I found it inspiring and moving that Kucinich
at least, if few others, has had the guts to stand up to the war
criminals and call for the removal of the chief perpetrator. It's long
overdue. Of course, it won't happen but it is great to watch Kucinich
call for it from the floor of the House. More power to him. 

Unfortunately, it appears from everything I read that an attack on
Iran will come before Bush leaves office -- one parting gift this
reckless fool will leave us with. The Bush crazies probably think of
it as a twofer -- attack Iran and get McCain elected at the same
time. But apparently John Conyers, who is head of something-or-other
in Congress, has warned Bush that if he attacks Iran, Conyers will
begin impeachment proceedings against him. I wonder if it could
backfire on Bush this time and he won't get away with it. But once
those bombs start falling on Iran there will be hell to pay -- for all
of us, far into the future. It is a very worrying prospect. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Finally!!! On CSPAN now.  Stream here:
 http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TVCode=CS 
 http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TVCode=CS

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing 
 independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of 
 holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me. 
 This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have 
 not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely 
 more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I 
 experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it. 
 And far more accurate in my experience.

 
 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold 
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up 
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether 
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold 
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that if in 10 minutes after coming in
from a cold day you go out again that you do not expect it would still
be cold and I believe that you would be surprised if it is hot.  Or if
lava was flowing in your back yard.  Of course, we don't think about
it being cold outside until it is time to go out again. But we know it
is cold outside. 
 
 If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did 
 it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To 
 lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too 
 much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it 
 did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation 
 of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep 
 things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief 
 that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on 
 what I am achieving in the moment. 

I don't get this at all.  
 
 After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is 
 all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I 
 look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground, 
 but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps 
 it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain 
 the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the 
 ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an 
 assumption, unless I choose to.

Isn't it just as hard to assume nothing?  Laws of nature and
expectations about how the world looks and behaves makes life simpler.
You rarely think about these expectations, they just are.
 
 When I leave the forest, does the tree remain? I don't know. My 
 memory of the tree will remain, for awhile, as long as I want it to 
 or need it to, to fulfill some contextual need, like a picture I 
 draw later from memory, or not.
 
 This is what I mean when I say that I create my Universe; everyone 
 creates their Universe.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Kucinich Presents Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

[Bhairitu]

May Bush's karma catch up with him sooner rather than later.

feste37 wrote:
 I've been watching it. I found it inspiring and moving that Kucinich
 at least, if few others, has had the guts to stand up to the war
 criminals and call for the removal of the chief perpetrator. It's long
 overdue. Of course, it won't happen but it is great to watch Kucinich
 call for it from the floor of the House. More power to him. 

 Unfortunately, it appears from everything I read that an attack on
 Iran will come before Bush leaves office -- one parting gift this
 reckless fool will leave us with. The Bush crazies probably think of
 it as a twofer -- attack Iran and get McCain elected at the same
 time. But apparently John Conyers, who is head of something-or-other
 in Congress, has warned Bush that if he attacks Iran, Conyers will
 begin impeachment proceedings against him. I wonder if it could
 backfire on Bush this time and he won't get away with it. But once
 those bombs start falling on Iran there will be hell to pay -- for all
 of us, far into the future. It is a very worrying prospect. 


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 Finally!!! On CSPAN now.  Stream here:
 http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TVCode=CS 
 http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TVCode=CS

 



   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 
 My perception is such that there are no beliefs existing
 independently in my mind purely for the sake of believing them, of
 holding onto them in order to create a world that makes sense to me.
 This to me is bondage, and a static view of the world that I have
 not the strength nor will nor interest to maintain. It is infinitely
 more enjoyable to watch the world come into being every time I
 experience it, and dissolve every time that I do not experience it.
 And far more accurate in my experience.


 So, for example, if I go outside and it is cold, my body gets cold
 and I come inside and say, its cold outside. Then my body warms up
 because it is warmer inside and then I don't know any longer whether
 it is cold outside. Why must I hold onto the belief that it is cold
 outside, when in fact I don't really know one way of the other?

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that if in 10 minutes after coming in
from a cold day you go out again that you do not expect it would still
be cold and I believe that you would be surprised if it is hot. Or if
lava was flowing in your back yard. Of course, we don't think about
it being cold outside until it is time to go out again. But we know it
is cold outside. 

 If a tree falls in the forest and I come upon the fallen tree, did
 it make a sound when it fell? Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't. To
 lug around the belief that it definitely did is too much weight, too
 much clutter. If someone were to then explain that yes, of course it
 did, I might agree with them, because I have studied the propagation
 of soundwaves and it is in my best interests that moment to keep
 things simple and agree with them. But there is no static belief
 that this is so. It is a situational or contextual belief, based on
 what I am achieving in the moment.

 
 After they leave and I am left alone with the fallen tree, that is
 all there is. A fallen tree that is laying there in the forest. As I
 look at the fallen tree, what is underneath it? Perhaps the ground,
 but seeing as the tree is very heavy and I cannot lift it, perhaps
 it rests on nothing at all. Again, I don't know, nor do I entertain
 the safe assumption that I do know what lies beneath it, that the
 ground extends beneath it. Again, too much trouble to hold such an
 assumption, unless I choose to.

It just sounds like you chose or not chose to go into a dissociative
state, dissociation meaning simply not seeing the connections that
people ordinarily see between things or events. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[gullible fool]

 It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
 Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
 beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
 mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
 remember any of that in Seelisberg.

Remember, Turq, the Gita talks of numerous heaven worlds. Sorry if this will 
burst your bubble, but there's a time to be realistic, and ex-TMers just should 
not expect to attain the same highest heaven world as the loftiest and most 
one-pointed ones on this forum.

--- On Sun, 6/8/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 2:24 PM
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   I think this glorification of the experience of
 depersonalization 
   is really misguided.  There is a lot of
 information about this 
   state in modern psychology that needs to be
 integrated into more 
   traditional understandings of these experiences. 
 Just because 
   she enjoyed this transition of awareness
 doesn't mean it is a 
   good thing. I found this account somewhat
 alarming.  I have had 
   experiences like it but would never seek them as
 a goal for my 
   awareness again.  
  
  Yep the ego will always find such an experience
 alarming. And 
  if the person it is occuring to has this experience
 poorly 
  integrated, it leads to madness; like dropping acid or
 something. 
  It is only by unwinding any aort of template of
 experience, of 
  camparison, of ego story, and living complete skill in
 action 
  as  Byron Katie does, that such a state lives up to
 its promised 
  fulfillment of desires. 
 
 Does it fuck up your spelling, though? I've 
 noticed 3 or 4 spelling errors in your last 
 two posts. This isn't one of those poorly 
 integrated things you are talking about, 
 is it?  :-)
 
  And no it shouldn't be glorified, for
 enlightenment is a completely 
  normal state of life. Not super normal-- just plain
 meat and 
  potatoes normal.
 
 Uh-huh. That's why you told us you know how
 heaven is decorated. That's pretty meat and
 potatoes...not super normal at all.  :-)
 
 How DO you know how heaven is decorated, Jim?
 
 It's not a meat and potatoes THEME, is it?
 Coffee tables that look like steaks, poofy 
 beanbag chairs that look like dollops of 
 mashed potatoes, that sorta thing? I don't 
 remember any of that in Seelisberg.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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
 
 
 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Byron Katie's Awakening

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  Best to just focus on your own path, if you have 
   one, and forget about all of the speculation.
  
  
  Yeah Ruth, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
  
  This statement is a serious red flag to thoughtful people Jim.
  
  Her question comes out of your response to the question: could 
you 
 use
  magical powers to cure your son? To which you replied: 
  
  So, why would I want to save my dying son from cancer through 
 some
  mystical mumbo-jumbo? What's the point?
  
  This seemed inconsistent because you would try medical measures to
  save him, so why not the normal magical powers of 
enlightenment? 
  And you have discussed having subjectively gained medical 
 knowledge of
  family members in the past so this question really does not 
 represent
  a peculiar view of enlightenment.  The difference between having
  magical powers and not using them and not having them at all seems
  nonexistent to me.
 
 Well the magical powers as you call them I have developed have not 
 been tried on cancer. I have dealt successfully with back injuries 
 and headaches-- stuff like that. Would I trust my magical powers to 
 heal someone of cancer vs. medical care? No way, though I would not 
 be able to resist using my magical powers to look around inside 
 their body and see if anything helpful occured to me. Magical 
powers-
 - cmoe on-- straight out of some ooga booga movie from the 50's...
  
  I don't believe I am enlightened 
  
  This is kind of important I think.  It is a belief.  Trying to 
 sell a
  belief as certain knowledge has not served mankind well in the 
 past. 
  In fact as soon as I see someone trying this move on my I 
 immediately
  check my wallet.
 
 Did you read that right? I said I *don't* believe I am enlightened, 
 any more than you believe you are a blues player.
  
  I think it adds a lot to the group to have your willingness to 
 answer
  questions about your assertions about yourself Jim.  There is an
  inherent condescension in the relationship, me = ignorant, you =
  enlightened.  
 
 Yeah the language kind of lends itself to that conclusion. Oh well.
 
 Actually any condescension comes from those who believe 
 enlightenment is something special. I have never said that it was, 
 just that permanent enlightenment is available to anyone, even 
 Barry, yixefero, John dorflex, Sal, and all the other doubters here-
 
 my, what a thought crime that is! And, gasp, if they are dilligent, 
 they may actually , gasp, achieve the Goal in this lifetime!!! Oh 
my 
 god, another thought crime!

Even worse for them, particularily for this Turqoise is the thought 
that someone could get enlightened with TM. Which would mean he 
wasted the last 30 years of his life. Thats why he freaks out by the 
idea that someone, and Jim is not the only one, actually achieved 
everything Maharishi promised while he wasted his time.