[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Dateline FF 7.2.08: It was a Fairfield meditating community thing today. Meditation retreat with Karunamayi. Lady-saint from India. Room full of Fairfield meditators, group meditations, some shakti pot, some spiritual discourse. Unbelievable good experience. Didn't need no belief, it just was experience. Had to be there to experience It. This is a curious claim. How could you know that no belief was needed? No one was in the room without a lot of beliefs in place. The claim is an attempt to elevate your own experience, which is fine on its own without the attempt to make it seem as if everyone's beliefs were not a critical component of the experience. Why? Isn't is enough that with all the belief prep you guys had a great time? Do you really need to attempt to make an epistemological claim that is not only not known, I'm not sure it is even knowable in any practical sense? Gotta agree with Curtis here. The same phrase set me off, too. What is wrong with saying, I went looking for a buzz and I found one. Over the next two days I will be looking for three more, and I'll probably find them, too? Let's face it, Doug...after 30-40 years of wait- ing for the TMO's promises to be fulfilled, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...if almost anyone came to town promising flash, a certain percentage of people attending would see the flash, because they're so desperate to exper- ience some before they die. That doesn't speak to the flash actually being present, merely to the strength of the desire to experience it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. G.W. Bush's Yale degree was a BA in history. After not being accepted to the U of Texas Law School, he earned an MBA from Harvard. All academic degrees are the same to Jim. He himself has a degree in Enlightenment from Moodmaking University. When you've got that on your resume, you don't need to bother with facts when you say something. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency
These guys are hilarious. I liked the video about children opposing child heathcare! --- On Wed, 7/2/08, koesje1958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: koesje1958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 11:37 PM http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush_tours_america_to_survey 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 11:28 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 2, 2008, at 9:45 PM, sandiego108 wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. George Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were talking about. As usual, Jim, you miss the point entirely while sounding like a complete dope. But thanks for sharing. Sal How exclusive of you Sal- you sound pretty mean and dopey yourself. Sal, Turq and Jim...one more peep from one of you and you ALL get a timeout! 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:Good News!-Largest Graduating Class 20 Years Negative thought forms
RE: Sal,Turk Jim I agree with U , Dr Peter S., they miss few
opportunities to Bash anyone or frequently Bush off topic as per usuall in
most
negative tones. The great ones enjoyned us to learn to enjoy the silence the
silence of our monds1 2 if nothing nice to say do NOT spoeak keep negative
thouth from in our head,{ (to corrupt there)My addition} 3. Balways looking
for
the dead dogs observe its beautuful shinny teeth My addition here is to
seldom respond B silent incarnate when Black over whelms with some pearl
white or Black one then continue to use my delete button hope for some
more frequent sign of moderation laughter with knowledge of the SELF
revealed
here as it si sometimes for me to learn from.
In a message dated 7/3/2008 7:09:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20
Years more
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 11:28 PM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jul 2, 2008, at 9:45 PM, sandiego108 wrote:
Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a
real degree
doesn't
mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush
wrecking our
economy as
we speak; record deficits, printing play money,
record oil
prices,
and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty
prestigous degree by
any
measure.
George Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with what
we were talking about. As usual, Jim, you miss the
point entirely while sounding like a complete dope.
But thanks for sharing.
Sal
How exclusive of you Sal- you sound pretty mean and dopey
yourself.
Sal, Turq and Jim...one more peep from one of you and you ALL get a timeout!
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
**Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
I don't have the exact numbers to hand. The other day I met a young woman from Somalia who is an MUM graduate student. She loved being at MUM and will soon have an MBA. She is looking forward to getting a job in this country that will use the skills she has learned. This student is one of many. MUM provides a unique education, and students from all over the world are able to benefit from it. Much of the criticism of MUM on this board is from people who don't know what they are talking about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I guess just anything will do when you want to take a potshot at the Movement. It must be really irritating for you to have to read that the graduating class is the biggest in 20 years. So you pick on some small thing to feed your irritation and no doubt hope to garner a few supportive posts from your fellow malcontents on this board. You so much want MUM and the Movement to fail, but alas, it's not happening! Must be very painful for you to read about success. Sorry, I did not mean to give offense. I just have a problem with calling people doctor who have honorary degrees. It just isn't done and so it ends up sounding misleading. Actually, it seems like MUM has had some success through its foreign student programs. How many students actually are on site? Anyone know?
[FairfieldLife] Re:Good News!-Largest Graduating Class 20 Years Negative thought forms
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RE: Sal,Turk Jim I agree with U , Dr Peter S., they miss few
opportunities to Bash anyone or frequently Bush off topic as
per usuall in most negative tones. The great ones enjoyned us
to learn to enjoy the silence the silence of our monds1 2
if nothing nice to say do NOT spoeak keep negative thouth from
in our head,{ (to corrupt there)My addition} 3. Balways looking
for the dead dogs observe its beautuful shinny teeth My
addition here is to seldom respond B silent incarnate when
Black over whelms with some pearl white or Black one then
continue to use my delete button hope for some more frequent
sign of moderation laughter with knowledge of the SELF revealed
here as it si sometimes for me to learn from.
Following the advice of the great ones has
obviously done wonders for your spelling, grammar,
and general ability to express a coherent thought.
I've often wondered...did you write like this in
the Army or Marine Corps or whatever branch of the
service you were in before you retired?
Or is it a more recent development, illiteracy as
a result of paying attention to the great ones?
In a message dated 7/3/2008 7:09:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- On Wed, 7/2/08, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class
in 20 Years more
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 11:28 PM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine
salsunshine@
wrote:
On Jul 2, 2008, at 9:45 PM, sandiego108 wrote:
Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a
real degree
doesn't
mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush
wrecking our
economy as
we speak; record deficits, printing play money,
record oil
prices,
and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty
prestigous degree by
any
measure.
George Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with what
we were talking about. As usual, Jim, you miss the
point entirely while sounding like a complete dope.
But thanks for sharing.
Sal
How exclusive of you Sal- you sound pretty mean and dopey
yourself.
Sal, Turq and Jim...one more peep from one of you and you ALL
get a timeout!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. G.W. Bush's Yale degree was a BA in history. After not being accepted to the U of Texas Law School, he earned an MBA from Harvard. Thanks for the correction.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:06 AM, feste37 wrote: I don't have the exact numbers to hand. The other day I met a young woman from Somalia who is an MUM graduate student. She loved being at MUM and will soon have an MBA. She is looking forward to getting a job in this country that will use the skills she has learned. This student is one of many. MUM provides a unique education, and students from all over the world are able to benefit from it. Much of the criticism of MUM on this board is from people who don't know what they are talking about. Um, feste, the criticism was of the phony titles, it had nothing at all to do with the university. I went to MUM, I got a degree there. I also loved it and felt I got a pretty good education there, despite some really unprofessional behavior on the part of a few of the teachers, some of which I've mentioned here in past posts. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
As a P.S. to this: regarding your point about referring to people with honorary MUM degrees as Dr., I agree with you. I wish they wouldn't do it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have the exact numbers to hand. The other day I met a young woman from Somalia who is an MUM graduate student. She loved being at MUM and will soon have an MBA. She is looking forward to getting a job in this country that will use the skills she has learned. This student is one of many. MUM provides a unique education, and students from all over the world are able to benefit from it. Much of the criticism of MUM on this board is from people who don't know what they are talking about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I guess just anything will do when you want to take a potshot at the Movement. It must be really irritating for you to have to read that the graduating class is the biggest in 20 years. So you pick on some small thing to feed your irritation and no doubt hope to garner a few supportive posts from your fellow malcontents on this board. You so much want MUM and the Movement to fail, but alas, it's not happening! Must be very painful for you to read about success. Sorry, I did not mean to give offense. I just have a problem with calling people doctor who have honorary degrees. It just isn't done and so it ends up sounding misleading. Actually, it seems like MUM has had some success through its foreign student programs. How many students actually are on site? Anyone know?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Wed, 7/2/08, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 11:28 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 2, 2008, at 9:45 PM, sandiego108 wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. George Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were talking about. As usual, Jim, you miss the point entirely while sounding like a complete dope. But thanks for sharing. Sal How exclusive of you Sal- you sound pretty mean and dopey yourself. Sal, Turq and Jim...one more peep from one of you and you ALL get a timeout! Lol- I'll take all the timeouts I can get!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue.
[FairfieldLife] David Lynch in today's Guardian
'The pleasure of life grows' Film-maker David Lynch hasn't missed a day of meditation in 34 years. He explains how one experience changed his quality of life forever Thursday July 3, 2008 The Guardian When I first heard about meditation, I had zero interest in it. I wasn't even curious. It sounded like a waste of time. What got me interested, though, was the phrase true happiness lies within. At first, I thought it sounded kind of mean because it doesn't tell you where the within is, or how to get there. But, still, it had a ring of truth. And I began to think that maybe meditation was a way to go within. I looked into meditation, asked some questions, and started contemplating different forms. During my research, my sister called and said she had been doing Transcendental Meditation for six months. There was something in her voice. A change. A quality of happiness. And I thought: That's what I want. So, in July 1973, I went to the Transcendental Meditation centre in Los Angeles and met an instructor. I liked her. She looked like Doris Day. She taught me this technique. She gave me a mantra, which is a sound-vibration-thought. You don't meditate on the meaning of it, but it's a very specific sound-vibration-thought. She took me into a little room to have my first meditation. I sat down, closed my eyes, started this mantra, and it was like I was in an elevator and they cut the cable. Boom! I fell into bliss - pure bliss. And I was just in there. Then the teacher said: It's time to come out; it's been 20 minutes. IT'S ALREADY BEEN 20 MINUTES?! I replied, shocked. And she told me to s!, because there were other people in the centre meditating. It seemed so familiar, but also so new and powerful. After that, I said the word unique should be reserved for this experience. It takes you to an ocean of pure consciousness, pure knowingness. But it's familiar, it's you. And, right away, a sense of happiness emerges - not a goofball happiness but a thick beauty. I have never missed a meditation in 34 years. I meditate once in the morning and again in the afternoon, for about 20 minutes each time. Then I go about the business of my day. And I find that the joy of doing increases. Intuition increases. The pleasure of life grows. And negativity recedes. Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Relaxation techniques can take you a little way in. That's beautiful, but it's not transcending. Transcending is its own unique thing. And why is transcending so easy? Because it's the nature of the mind to go to fields of greater happiness. It naturally wants to go. And the deeper you go, the more there is, until you hit 100% pure bliss. Transcendental Meditation is the vehicle that takes you there. It's the experience that does everything. One of the main things that got me talking publicly about Transcendental Meditation was seeing the difference it can make to kids. Kids are suffering. Stress is hitting them at a younger and younger age. And there are all these different learning disorders that I never even heard about before. At the same time, I saw the results of schools where the students and teachers practise transcendental meditation - where the student learns to dive within and unfold the self, that pure consciousness. Grades go up and test scores improve; students and teachers have less stress, less anxiety. The joy of learning and the joy of teaching increase. My foundation, the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, was set up to help more kids get that kind of experience. We've raised money and given it to schools throughout the world to allow tens of thousands of students to learn to meditate. It's amazing to see kids who do this. Stress just doesn't catch them; it's like water off a duck's back. I am doing this not only for the students' sake, for their own growth of consciousness, but for all of us, because we are like lightbulbs. And like lightbulbs, we can enjoy that brighter light of consciousness within, and also radiate it. I believe that the key to peace is in this. · Visit davidlynchfoundation.org and askthedoctors.com for information
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:Good News!-Largest Graduating Class 20 Years Negative thought forms
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:25 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RE: Sal,Turk Jim I agree with U , Dr Peter S., they miss few
opportunities to Bash anyone or frequently Bush off topic as
per usuall in most negative tones. The great ones enjoyned us
to learn to enjoy the silence the silence of our monds1 2
if nothing nice to say do NOT spoeak keep negative thouth from
in our head,{ (to corrupt there)My addition} 3. Balways looking
for the dead dogs observe its beautuful shinny teeth My
addition here is to seldom respond B silent incarnate when
Black over whelms with some pearl white or Black one then
continue to use my delete button hope for some more frequent
sign of moderation laughter with knowledge of the SELF revealed
here as it si sometimes for me to learn from.
Following the advice of the great ones has
obviously done wonders for your spelling, grammar,
and general ability to express a coherent thought.
I'm wondering when he's going to post the English translation!
Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:42 AM, sandiego108 wrote: Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. Jim, just out of idle curiosity, why are you *so* obsessed with Barry, with everything he says or does? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. But Jim, you made the claim -- your words imply 1) enlightenment is a relative thing, that is, one can be More enlightened than another. 2) that you are more full of IT than Turq 3) Being more full of IT, is a thing of pride for you, and a sense of inferiority for Turq. While it was a joke, jokes can reveal a lot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? Maybe Jim has twins.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
What is wrong with saying, I went looking for a buzz and I found one. Over the next two days I will be looking for three more, and I'll probably find them, too? When people in a spiritual context make a claim that attempts to make it all more credible it is a tell, like a magician saying I've got an ordinary deck of playing cards. Ordinary? Now you know it is a rigged deck! Spiritual people want their experience to be for real real. We all know that we make so many cognitive errors internally. We are steeped in some of the qualities that make a statement more credible. So the selling of a spiritual experience begins. Maharishi set the tone by pretending to have anything but contempt for the methods of science. The New Testament is loaded with proofs of Jesus' divinity. Even in that pre-scientific culture they understood enough about epistemological solidity to throw in references to how many people witnessed a miracle to make it all sound more for real real. There is some legit stuff going on in labs measuring the effects of meditation and I think that is a cool intersection of these different approaches to knowledge. But when you get in the room with a bunch of believers, please don't claim that your beliefs were not a critical component of your subjective experiences. With my trance addiction and previous experiences with Maharishi, I'm sure I could get a wopping buzz in that room just from all the residual unconscious beliefs that I still have knocking around my belfry. (along with the odd bat or two) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Dateline FF 7.2.08: It was a Fairfield meditating community thing today. Meditation retreat with Karunamayi. Lady-saint from India. Room full of Fairfield meditators, group meditations, some shakti pot, some spiritual discourse. Unbelievable good experience. Didn't need no belief, it just was experience. Had to be there to experience It. This is a curious claim. How could you know that no belief was needed? No one was in the room without a lot of beliefs in place. The claim is an attempt to elevate your own experience, which is fine on its own without the attempt to make it seem as if everyone's beliefs were not a critical component of the experience. Why? Isn't is enough that with all the belief prep you guys had a great time? Do you really need to attempt to make an epistemological claim that is not only not known, I'm not sure it is even knowable in any practical sense? Gotta agree with Curtis here. The same phrase set me off, too. What is wrong with saying, I went looking for a buzz and I found one. Over the next two days I will be looking for three more, and I'll probably find them, too? Let's face it, Doug...after 30-40 years of wait- ing for the TMO's promises to be fulfilled, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...if almost anyone came to town promising flash, a certain percentage of people attending would see the flash, because they're so desperate to exper- ience some before they die. That doesn't speak to the flash actually being present, merely to the strength of the desire to experience it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. G.W. Bush's Yale degree was a BA in history. After not being accepted to the U of Texas Law School, he earned an MBA from Harvard. All academic degrees are the same to Jim. He himself has a degree in Enlightenment from Moodmaking University. When you've got that on your resume, you don't need to bother with facts when you say something. :-) And Barry has so much time on his hands here all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is wrong with saying, I went looking for a buzz and I found one. Over the next two days I will be looking for three more, and I'll probably find them, too? When people in a spiritual context make a claim that attempts to make it all more credible it is a tell, like a magician saying I've got an ordinary deck of playing cards. Ordinary? Now you know it is a rigged deck! Spiritual people want their experience to be for real real. We all know that we make so many cognitive errors internally. We are steeped in some of the qualities that make a statement more credible. So the selling of a spiritual experience begins. Maharishi set the tone by pretending to have anything but contempt for the methods of science. The New Testament is loaded with proofs of Jesus' divinity. Even in that pre-scientific culture they understood enough about epistemological solidity to throw in references to how many people witnessed a miracle to make it all sound more for real real. There is some legit stuff going on in labs measuring the effects of meditation and I think that is a cool intersection of these different approaches to knowledge. But when you get in the room with a bunch of believers, please don't claim that your beliefs were not a critical component of your subjective experiences. With my trance addiction and previous experiences with Maharishi, I'm sure I could get a wopping buzz in that room just from all the residual unconscious beliefs that I still have knocking around my belfry. (along with the odd bat or two) What you say has merit. And would not appear to be limited to spiritual experience. But do you think, or believe, that beliefs are at the root of all experience? All positive experience? If not, what distinguishes pure experience from belief influenced of belief driven experience? Is belief deriving your experience when you see a hot woman walking down the street?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Tom wrote: You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. The mocking actually seems to be what gives Jim's life meaning. You know, kind of like Jesus. Jim seems to figure that if he can endure enough of it, he'll be elevated to greatness...or something. Anyone got a crown of thorns handy? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Tom wrote: You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. The mocking actually seems to be what gives Jim's life meaning. You know, kind of like Jesus. Jim seems to figure that if he can endure enough of it, he'll be elevated to greatness...or something. Anyone got a crown of thorns handy? Sal Mockito ergo sum.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:27 AM, new.morning wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Tom wrote: You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. The mocking actually seems to be what gives Jim's life meaning. You know, kind of like Jesus. Jim seems to figure that if he can endure enough of it, he'll be elevated to greatness...or something. Anyone got a crown of thorns handy? Sal Mockito ergo sum. LOL... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'The pleasure of life grows' Film-maker David Lynch hasn't missed a day of meditation in 34 years. He explains how one experience changed his quality of life forever Thursday July 3, 2008 The Guardian When I first heard about meditation, I had zero interest in it. I wasn't even curious. It sounded like a waste of time. What got me interested, though, was the phrase true happiness lies within. At first, I thought it sounded kind of mean because it doesn't tell you where the within is, or how to get there. But, still, it had a ring of truth. And I began to think that maybe meditation was a way to go within. I looked into meditation, asked some questions, and started contemplating different forms. During my research, my sister called and said she had been doing Transcendental Meditation for six months. There was something in her voice. A change. A quality of happiness. And I thought: That's what I want. So, in July 1973, I went to the Transcendental Meditation centre in Los Angeles and met an instructor. I liked her. She looked like Doris Day. She taught me this technique. She gave me a mantra, which is a sound-vibration-thought. You don't meditate on the meaning of it, but it's a very specific sound-vibration-thought. She took me into a little room to have my first meditation. I sat down, closed my eyes, started this mantra, and it was like I was in an elevator and they cut the cable. Boom! I fell into bliss - pure bliss. And I was just in there. Then the teacher said: It's time to come out; it's been 20 minutes. IT'S ALREADY BEEN 20 MINUTES?! I replied, shocked. And she told me to s!, because there were other people in the centre meditating. It seemed so familiar, but also so new and powerful. After that, I said the word unique should be reserved for this experience. It takes you to an ocean of pure consciousness, pure knowingness. But it's familiar, it's you. And, right away, a sense of happiness emerges - not a goofball happiness but a thick beauty. I have never missed a meditation in 34 years. I meditate once in the morning and again in the afternoon, for about 20 minutes each time. Then I go about the business of my day. And I find that the joy of doing increases. Intuition increases. The pleasure of life grows. And negativity recedes. Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Relaxation techniques can take you a little way in. That's beautiful, but it's not transcending. Transcending is its own unique thing. And why is transcending so easy? Because it's the nature of the mind to go to fields of greater happiness. It naturally wants to go. And the deeper you go, the more there is, until you hit 100% pure bliss. Transcendental Meditation is the vehicle that takes you there. It's the experience that does everything. One of the main things that got me talking publicly about Transcendental Meditation was seeing the difference it can make to kids. Kids are suffering. Stress is hitting them at a younger and younger age. And there are all these different learning disorders that I never even heard about before. At the same time, I saw the results of schools where the students and teachers practise transcendental meditation - where the student learns to dive within and unfold the self, that pure consciousness. Grades go up and test scores improve; students and teachers have less stress, less anxiety. The joy of learning and the joy of teaching increase. My foundation, the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, was set up to help more kids get that kind of experience. We've raised money and given it to schools throughout the world to allow tens of thousands of students to learn to meditate. It's amazing to see kids who do this. Stress just doesn't catch them; it's like water off a duck's back. I am doing this not only for the students' sake, for their own growth of consciousness, but for all of us, because we are like lightbulbs. And like lightbulbs, we can enjoy that brighter light of consciousness within, and also radiate it. I believe that the key to peace is in this. · Visit davidlynchfoundation.org and askthedoctors.com for information
[FairfieldLife] lazy water (c)
Here's another composition of mine. Enjoy. http://tinyurl.com/3u2nkk
[FairfieldLife] Belief and Art
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. Isn't appreciation of art is relative? It depends at least some on one's internal sense or critical theory as to what is good and what is not. Some have a sophisticated internal art (or literary) criticism others not so refined, nuanced or even having much structure at all. Curtis, per prior post / discussion, what degree of belief -- in the larger sense, what degree if inner aesthetic model or understanding, drives ones appreciation of music, or art? Music and art are visceral on one level. No thought, you just moves you or it doesn't. But that's the level of aesthetic sense of the guy (GWB might be a good example in your head to hear him saying this) I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. Appreciation of art (can) grow(s) as one gains a deeper understanding of art, its history styles, methods, etc. As with music. I am sure you get more appreciation, an can better evaluate good blues from sloppy blues than can I. But I can still be greatly moved by blues, even if blissfully ignorant. Like when I was 16 an I first heard Paul Butterfiled band do Walkin Blues, a light wnet on in my head and I thought, this is it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Its a little bit of marketing is all. Even a real degree doesn't mean much these days-- there's that guy Bush wrecking our economy as we speak; record deficits, printing play money, record oil prices, and the guy has an MBA from Yale, a pretty prestigous degree by any measure. G.W. Bush's Yale degree was a BA in history. After not being accepted to the U of Texas Law School, he earned an MBA from Harvard. All academic degrees are the same to Jim. He himself has a degree in Enlightenment from Moodmaking University. When you've got that on your resume, you don't need to bother with facts when you say something. :-) And Barry has so much time on his hands here all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. This is an internet chat room, one of hundreds of thousands probably -- I post my thoughts, and others post theirs. To think that my opinion on a silly film will invite mocking seems very strange to me indeed, and I suggest those that do it need to as they say, get a life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you say has merit. And would not appear to be limited to spiritual experience. But do you think, or believe, that beliefs are at the root of all experience? All positive experience? If not, what distinguishes pure experience from belief influenced of belief driven experience? Is belief deriving your experience when you see a hot woman walking down the street? Define hot. Do you see the issue? If you were from India, or from some parts of the Middle East or Eastern Europe, hot would be a woman with an enormous butt and hips wide enough to give birth to a battleship. If you're from one of the cultures more influenced by Vogue and modern movies and TV...not so much. You might think that Carla Bruni/Sarkozy is hot. In both cases, however, your *beliefs* about what is hot and what is not predetermines to some extent your reaction to the woman. It's an interesting issue you bring up. You just chose the wrong metaphor to illustrate it. What I hear you asking is whether there IS such a thing as pure experience, not affected by or prejudiced by beliefs. I can't really answer that. I suspect that there is NOT, because there is not one of us born on this planet who escaped being taught about the world we live in, in our various cultures and religious or non-religious environments. This is a classic fascination in the sociology of religion, and much has been written about the subject. If a Hindu, a Christian, and a Buddhist all have the exact same hazy, indistinct subjective experience of formless light, it is verifiable that the Hindu is going to interpret that hazy experience in terms of the appearance of one or more Hindu deities, the Christian in terms of an appearance of Jesus, and the Buddhist in terms of an experience of Voidness. So clearly the interpretation of the experience *after the fact* is influenced by belief. What is not so clear to many religious sociology scholars is whether the hazy, indistinct subjective experience could be had by any of the three *without* the preexistence of a belief foundation. Me, I don't believe that there exists any such animal as pure experience. All experience is experienced on top of a lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and preconditioning, and then is interpreted after the fact based on that same lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and pre- conditioning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Tom wrote: You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. The mocking actually seems to be what gives Jim's life meaning. You know, kind of like Jesus. Jim seems to figure that if he can endure enough of it, he'll be elevated to greatness...or something. Anyone got a crown of thorns handy? Sal If this is a competition with me Sal on who can sound the most like a dope, you win, hands down.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Tom wrote: You continually open yourself for the mocking Jim. If you can handle it, fine. To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. The mocking actually seems to be what gives Jim's life meaning. You know, kind of like Jesus. Jim seems to figure that if he can endure enough of it, he'll be elevated to greatness...or something. Mockito ergo sum. Now that's funny!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: all he can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. But Jim, you made the claim -- your words imply 1) enlightenment is a relative thing, that is, one can be More enlightened than another. 2) that you are more full of IT than Turq 3) Being more full of IT, is a thing of pride for you, and a sense of inferiority for Turq. While it was a joke, jokes can reveal a lot. Door number 2 please.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
What you say has merit. And would not appear to be limited to spiritual experience. But do you think, or believe, that beliefs are at the root of all experience? All positive experience? If not, what distinguishes pure experience from belief influenced of belief driven experience? Is belief deriving your experience when you see a hot woman walking down the street? I'm not advocating experiences separated from belief. It think most experiences are improved by them. Science tries to minimize this effect in some contexts. So the claim that an experience was not reliant on beliefs just sounds sciency. I believe that all perception is rooted in conception. Mostly it is a good thing. My subjective experience of roots blues music is enhanced by my understanding and beliefs about it. I am trying to figure out what aspects of my meditation experiences are shaped by residual beliefs. It may not be practical for me to know this because it is impossible to root out my own biases. Just because I am consciously skeptical that Maharishi's perspective is solidly based, doesn't mean that on some deep level I haven't bought into his perspective on what this experience of my self means. I got that perspective so deeply entrenched it may not be an optional filter in my experience of meditaton now. What makes a hot woman so full of beliefs an pre-conceptions. You see Maria and say wow. An African bushman says That twig can't carry enough water to be useful in my hut! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: What is wrong with saying, I went looking for a buzz and I found one. Over the next two days I will be looking for three more, and I'll probably find them, too? When people in a spiritual context make a claim that attempts to make it all more credible it is a tell, like a magician saying I've got an ordinary deck of playing cards. Ordinary? Now you know it is a rigged deck! Spiritual people want their experience to be for real real. We all know that we make so many cognitive errors internally. We are steeped in some of the qualities that make a statement more credible. So the selling of a spiritual experience begins. Maharishi set the tone by pretending to have anything but contempt for the methods of science. The New Testament is loaded with proofs of Jesus' divinity. Even in that pre-scientific culture they understood enough about epistemological solidity to throw in references to how many people witnessed a miracle to make it all sound more for real real. There is some legit stuff going on in labs measuring the effects of meditation and I think that is a cool intersection of these different approaches to knowledge. But when you get in the room with a bunch of believers, please don't claim that your beliefs were not a critical component of your subjective experiences. With my trance addiction and previous experiences with Maharishi, I'm sure I could get a wopping buzz in that room just from all the residual unconscious beliefs that I still have knocking around my belfry. (along with the odd bat or two) What you say has merit. And would not appear to be limited to spiritual experience. But do you think, or believe, that beliefs are at the root of all experience? All positive experience? If not, what distinguishes pure experience from belief influenced of belief driven experience? Is belief deriving your experience when you see a hot woman walking down the street?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief and Art
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom azgrey@ wrote: To do things like pronounce the greatness of a flick like Iron Man puts a bulls-eye on your back. It was a very well crafted B-movie. Isn't appreciation of art is relative? It depends at least some on one's internal sense or critical theory as to what is good and what is not. Some have a sophisticated internal art (or literary) criticism others not so refined, nuanced or even having much structure at all. Ah, a subject dear to my heart -- film crit. I would say that one's appreciation of any art form IS very much subjective, and that on one level there is no better or best film, and similarly no worst or Golden Turkey film. However, there can be some measure of con- sensus gained among critics, based not so much on a common understanding of critical theory, but on a shared database of film experience. That is, how many films has the critic seen, and what kinds of films? Does the critic have under his artistic belt only the big summer blockbusters, or has he seen Citizen Kane and The Gold Rush and Les Enfants du Paradis and other films that many might con- sider true classics? Jim's original rave review of Iron Man was *emotional*. The film moved him and he loved it. NO PROBLEMO there. I liked the film, too, and agree with Jim that Robert Downey, Jr. was exemplary in it. But Jim was carried away enough by emotion to suggest that the film and its star deserved Academy Awards. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving Iron Man. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering it one of the best films one has ever seen. But to suggest that the film or Downey's performance could possibly get an Oscar indicates (IMO) a lack of knowledge about the Oscars and how they work, and the volume of other films that might be competing against Iron Man this coming year. Not to mention a knowledge of film history -- if Downey didn't get an Oscar for Chaplin, he's not going to get one for Iron Man, unless he dies just before the nominations and the voting. Even if one has a large shared film database of having seen past classics and recognizing what *made* them classics, one can lose perspective if you just haven't seen a truly great film in some time. Your standards start to slip. That happened to me in recent months, and was only remedied by seeing In Bruges. I had begun giving some B movies A movie reviews, *because my standards had slipped*. It took seeing a good movie again to remind me what the other films had to live up to. It was a timely reminder. I have started writing some minor film reviews, and this experience taught me that I have to make it a ritual to pull at least one classic GREAT film off my shelves every week and watch it. I have to do this to *keep perspective* on what a GREAT film is and what an also-ran is. Curtis, per prior post / discussion, what degree of belief -- in the larger sense, what degree if inner aesthetic model or understanding, drives ones appreciation of music, or art? Music and art are visceral on one level. No thought, you just moves you or it doesn't. I really have to disagree. I could sit you down and play you music from a couple of countries on this planet that is considered on the level of Beethoven or Bach in those countries, and it would have you wanting to cut your own ears off to make it Go Away within minutes. The music is in a scale that is -- to our Western ears -- Just Not Pleasant. The scale makes it sound to Westerners like the musical counterpart of fingernails on a blackboard. I would say that music and art are visceral *within a cultural milieu, and to someone brought up within that cultural milieu*. Appreciation of music and art from *outside* of one's cultural milieu can require some training of the perceiver before it is perceived as music or art.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer saying to a TM friend Well, they're very nice people but they don't get the coherence do they. Sigh. I'd slap me if said that now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: 'The pleasure of life grows' Film-maker David Lynch hasn't missed a day of meditation in 34 years. He explains how one experience changed his quality of life forever Thursday July 3, 2008 The Guardian When I first heard about meditation, I had zero interest in it. I wasn't even curious. It sounded like a waste of time. What got me interested, though, was the phrase true happiness lies within. At first, I thought it sounded kind of mean because it doesn't tell you where the within is, or how to get there. But, still, it had a ring of truth. And I began to think that maybe meditation was a way to go within. I looked into meditation, asked some questions, and started contemplating different forms. During my research, my sister called and said she had been doing Transcendental Meditation for six months. There was something in her voice. A change. A quality of happiness. And I thought: That's what I want. So, in July 1973, I went to the Transcendental Meditation centre in Los Angeles and met an instructor. I liked her. She looked like Doris Day. She taught me this technique. She gave me a mantra, which is a sound-vibration-thought. You don't meditate on the meaning of it, but it's a very specific sound-vibration-thought. She took me into a little room to have my first meditation. I sat down, closed my eyes, started this mantra, and it was like I was in an elevator and they cut the cable. Boom! I fell into bliss - pure bliss. And I was just in there. Then the teacher said: It's time to come out; it's been 20 minutes. IT'S ALREADY BEEN 20 MINUTES?! I replied, shocked. And she told me to s!, because there were other people in the centre meditating. It seemed so familiar, but also so new and powerful. After that, I said the word unique should be reserved for this experience. It takes you to an ocean of pure consciousness, pure knowingness. But it's familiar, it's you. And, right away, a sense of happiness emerges - not a goofball happiness but a thick beauty. I have never missed a meditation in 34 years. I meditate once in the morning and again in the afternoon, for about 20 minutes each time. Then I go about the business of my day. And I find that the joy of doing increases. Intuition increases. The pleasure of life grows. And negativity recedes. Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Relaxation techniques can take you a little way in. That's beautiful, but it's not transcending. Transcending is its own unique thing. And why is transcending so easy? Because it's the nature of the mind to go to fields of greater happiness. It naturally wants to go. And the deeper you go, the more there is, until you hit 100% pure bliss. Transcendental Meditation is the vehicle that takes you there. It's the experience that does everything. One of the main things that got me talking publicly about Transcendental Meditation was seeing the difference it can make to kids. Kids are suffering. Stress is hitting them at a younger and younger age. And there are all these different learning disorders that I never even heard about before. At the same time, I saw the results of schools where the students and teachers practise transcendental meditation - where the student learns to dive within and unfold the self, that pure consciousness. Grades go up and test scores improve; students and teachers have less stress, less anxiety. The joy of learning and the joy of teaching increase. My foundation, the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, was set up to help more kids get that kind of experience. We've raised money and given it to schools
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
all he [Turq] can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. But Jim, you made the claim -- your words imply 1) enlightenment is a relative thing, that is, one can be More enlightened than another. 2) that you are more full of IT than Turq 3) Being more full of IT, is a thing of pride for you, and a sense of inferiority for Turq. While it was a joke, jokes can reveal a lot. Door number 2 please. For once, Jim and I are agreed. He is definitely more full of it than I am. :-) Of course, we may have different definitions of it. :-) I was trying to stay out of this, but New makes an interesting point or two about Jim's top-level comment. I'll add one more -- his statement implies competition over levels of attainment. In answer to Sal's earlier question, I think what has Barry so far up Jim's butt is that he is upset that Barry doesn't believe he's enlightened. And for some reason, it's important to him to believe that Barry believe that Jim is enlightened. Jim's does the Judy Thing here, and projected onto me what he would *prefer* that I was really think- ing or believing, but am lying about. In this case Jim prefers to believe that I really think of him as one of those who I begrudgingly admit to being more enlightened than I am. The way I read this, Jim is saying that he thinks that I really DO believe he's enlightened, but am pretending not to, or running from because I am afraid of him and his enlightenment, or afraid of my own. He has said as much explicitly many times on this forum. Free clue, Jim. I really DON'T believe that you are enlightened. Never have. Not for a moment. I believe that you've had minor experiences that you have *interpreted* as enlightenment, and have moodmade those minor experiences into major ones in your head, but I think you're mistaken about the enlightenment thang. I could be mistaken about this, of course. But it really is what I believe. I think you're a basic- ally nice guy who is nicer when he's not trying to convince people that you're more enlightened than they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: all he [Turq] can do is make up lame insults for those on here who he begrudgingly admits to being more enlightened than he is. :-) Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. But Jim, you made the claim -- your words imply 1) enlightenment is a relative thing, that is, one can be More enlightened than another. 2) that you are more full of IT than Turq 3) Being more full of IT, is a thing of pride for you, and a sense of inferiority for Turq. While it was a joke, jokes can reveal a lot. Door number 2 please. For once, Jim and I are agreed. He is definitely more full of it than I am. :-) Of course, we may have different definitions of it. :-) I was trying to stay out of this, but New makes an interesting point or two about Jim's top-level comment. I'll add one more -- his statement implies competition over levels of attainment. In answer to Sal's earlier question, I think what has Barry so far up Jim's butt is that he is upset that Barry doesn't believe he's enlightened. And for some reason, it's important to him to believe that Barry believe that Jim is enlightened. Jim's does the Judy Thing here, and projected onto me what he would *prefer* that I was really think- ing or believing, but am lying about. In this case Jim prefers to believe that I really think of him as one of those who I begrudgingly admit to being more enlightened than I am. The way I read this, Jim is saying that he thinks that I really DO believe he's enlightened, but am pretending not to, or running from because I am afraid of him and his enlightenment, or afraid of my own. He has said as much explicitly many times on this forum. Free clue, Jim. I really DON'T believe that you are enlightened. Never have. Not for a moment. I believe that you've had minor experiences that you have *interpreted* as enlightenment, and have moodmade those minor experiences into major ones in your head, but I think you're mistaken about the enlightenment thang. I could be mistaken about this, of course. But it really is what I believe. I think you're a basic- ally nice guy who is nicer when he's not trying to convince people that you're more enlightened than they are. Like I said, its your issue, not mine. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:42 AM, sandiego108 wrote: Is that like being more pregnant than another? I dunno- you'll have to ask Barry-- he's the one with the issue. Jim, just out of idle curiosity, why are you *so* obsessed with Barry, with everything he says or does? Sal first you tell us why you are so obsessed with ME (pun intended) Ha ha!
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Yup. Been there, done that, remember the shock of realizing that what I had been saying in intro and advanced lectures for 14 years was simply not true. I had walked away from the TMO some time earlier, but still carried with me a lot of its dogma, so it took some effort on my part to break out of the effortlessness thang and practice a form of concentration meditation. But when I did -- what a shock! My experience of transcendence was clearer than any I had previously experienced with TM. And I could get to it any time I wanted to, at will, not just sit around and wait for it to appear. What a moment of cognitive dissonance THAT was for me. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer saying to a TM friend Well, they're very nice people but they don't get the coherence do they. Sigh. I'd slap me if said that now. It's one of the toughest aspects of the TMO condi- tioning to get over. So MUCH of the dogma was about elitism -- TM was the best, and ALL other techniques were inferior, and the tendency to reinterpret all other spiritual teachings in history in terms of TM, such that that's what Christ and Buddha were really teaching -- that it's really tough to get past that and back into Beginner's Mind. We were all taught for so many years (or decades) that we were NOT beginners. We were, in fact, advanced, Governors of the Age of Enlightenment. We were the ELITE, those who trod the highest path. That's some heavy conditioning TO get past.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... Why is this a curious claim? You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer Which shows what kind of person you really are, and why MANY people left the TM movement because of pretentious people like you who are now out and ranting pretentiously about it, leaving the decent people still in the TM movement. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... Why is this a curious claim? You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. Neither is the process of thinking the mantra and taking it as it comes but it leads to transcendence right? How exactly does he know that none of these practices lead to the same thing? Your point is nonsense and applies equally to the practice of TM then. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
On Jul 3, 2008, at 11:31 AM, sandiego108 wrote: Jim, just out of idle curiosity, why are you *so* obsessed with Barry, with everything he says or does? Sal first you tell us why you are so obsessed with ME (pun intended) Ha ha! In your dreams, Jim--for either one. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:34 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Yup. Been there, done that, remember the shock of realizing that what I had been saying in intro and advanced lectures for 14 years was simply not true. I had walked away from the TMO some time earlier, but still carried with me a lot of its dogma, so it took some effort on my part to break out of the effortlessness thang and practice a form of concentration meditation. But when I did -- what a shock! My experience of transcendence was clearer than any I had previously experienced with TM. And I could get to it any time I wanted to, at will, not just sit around and wait for it to appear. What a moment of cognitive dissonance THAT was for me. Ditto here, and a shocker at the time. It was a shocker because I realized, on some level, I still held onto my precious belief that TM was the fastest boat, the bestest of the best, etc. But once it was transcended, you automatically transcended that belief. I feel that was part of the shock, in addition to fully transcending the interdependently arisen transcendent (despite the fact I'd had clear experiences of transcending for years), I was free and beyond. Immediately any attachment to the technique--and clearly I had accumulated attachment to the technique--fell away. Bye bye. Then I understood why it's not only paramount to not be attached to ANY technique, but to learn to be able to dissolve the technique itself. Ultimately we all will have to leave whatever technique we practice behind. So why not just know how to do that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer Which shows what kind of person you really are, and why MANY people left the TM movement because of pretentious people like you who are now out and ranting pretentiously about it, leaving the decent people still in the TM movement. OffWorld What's your beef Offworld?. I've found out that Barry and Vaj are right by my own experimenting with different techniques, I've been amazed that I can transcend to an exquisite place just by shifting my attention slightly. OK it took a few weeks of practise but from day one it did something that TM singulary failed to do and that is give me mental quietness outside of meditation. I love it and the Darwinian selection process that is occuring in me as to which technique to stick with has pretty much been decided. But here's the thing, I'm not attached to it, I don't feel like it defines what I am like TM does it's just one of a few things I know how to do that really seems to work deeply, spontaneously and *every single time*. I still want to learn more about different techniques and will keep following the links and advice of people who have gone beyond the cultish attachment to the TM program that so disturbs me. So come on OffWorld why do you object so much? It's not pretentious to try new stuff. I've still got loads of TM friends. Nobody ever left the movement because of me, though some may have been happy when I stopped showing up but not many, most people can make the distinction between beliefs and personality and surely anyone who judges you as bad because you try something new is an arsehole you'd be better off not knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Me, I don't believe that there exists any such animal as pure experience. All experience is experienced on top of a lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and preconditioning, and then is interpreted after the fact based on that same lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and pre- conditioning. When I first read this it had a certain seductive logic (especially in the hot woman context). But if you push at it - where do you end up? If you take that to a non hot-woman context - Science knowledge - that way leads to madness perhaps? I'm thinking of post-modern Science, just a construct some might say of post-imperialist (white), Western culture (you need a lot of quite marks with this kind of stuff!). If there is no pure experience, there is nothing out there but our social or individual constructs, what is true for me may not be true for you etc etc - can you really get by with that degree of scepticism relativism? What of your claim quoted above? Is that something you take to be true which makes it some kind of exception? It's a long time ago - but I remember being very impressed with the idea of Quality in Zen The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance as a way of breaking out of the subject/object epistemological trap. I must re-read it 'cos I can't seem to remember how it worked. For all your negative take on MMY - his knowledge is structured in consciousness seems to me to be very philosophically sophisticated (quite Hegelian). There is no ONE truth or reality, but an evolving dance between the self and the Other. (Quite clever for what Vaj asserts to be nothing but a get-rich-quick scam).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good News!-Largest Graduating Class in 20 Years more
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 11:31 AM, sandiego108 wrote: Jim, just out of idle curiosity, why are you *so* obsessed with Barry, with everything he says or does? Sal first you tell us why you are so obsessed with ME (pun intended) Ha ha! In your dreams, Jim--for either one. Sal Eeww, though happy to hear that you have a life outside of this chat room, unlike others here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Yup. Been there, done that, remember the shock of realizing that what I had been saying in intro and advanced lectures for 14 years was simply not true. I had walked away from the TMO some time earlier, but still carried with me a lot of its dogma, so it took some effort on my part to break out of the effortlessness thang and practice a form of concentration meditation. But when I did -- what a shock! My experience of transcendence was clearer than any I had previously experienced with TM. And I could get to it any time I wanted to, at will, not just sit around and wait for it to appear. What a moment of cognitive dissonance THAT was for me. Me too, it left me most happy that I'd found something undeniable that didn't require the mantra and falling asleep and all the unstressing. I still actually do TM a bit but getting less all the time as the other types get more interesting. It's like being a pioneer again rather than sticking to the same old thing out of habit. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer saying to a TM friend Well, they're very nice people but they don't get the coherence do they. Sigh. I'd slap me if said that now. It's one of the toughest aspects of the TMO condi- tioning to get over. So MUCH of the dogma was about elitism -- TM was the best, and ALL other techniques were inferior, and the tendency to reinterpret all other spiritual teachings in history in terms of TM, such that that's what Christ and Buddha were really teaching -- that it's really tough to get past that and back into Beginner's Mind. It's so well presented in the books isn't it. If you don't know any better the logic of it seems obvious so it just sticks. Even when a Buddhist friend told about the first time he experienced what he termed the void I rationalised it away with MMYs teaching: It happens in spite of the meditation not because of it, the mind strains and strains and finally it snaps briefly into the transcendent to escape - and told myself I was much better off. Didn't tell him of course, I didn't think it my place to pity the unenlightened. Wow, it's all coming back and I always insist on here that I never fell for it all, that I remained detatched from the teachings. Ha! Well I never, I'm glad Curtis set me off on this it's like a voyage of discovery I can dig up some ghosts and lay them to rest. We were all taught for so many years (or decades) that we were NOT beginners. We were, in fact, advanced, Governors of the Age of Enlightenment. We were the ELITE, those who trod the highest path. That's some heavy conditioning TO get past. It's all a learning curve I guess.
[FairfieldLife] Charming Article
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/wellbeing/story/0,,2288645,00.htmlDavid Lynch in the Guardian newspaper http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/wellbeing/story/0,,2288645,00.html 'The pleasure of life grows' Film-maker David Lynch hasn't missed a day of meditation in 34 years. He explains how one experience changed his quality of life forever Find your free complete guide to relaxation and massage in this weekend's Guardian and Observer David Lynch Thursday July 3, 2008 Guardian When I first heard about meditation, I had zero interest in it. I wasn't even curious. It sounded like a waste of time. What got me interested, though, was the phrase true happiness lies within. At first, I thought it sounded kind of mean because it doesn't tell you where the within is, or how to get there. But, still, it had a ring of truth. And I began to think that maybe meditation was a way to go within. I looked into meditation, asked some questions, and started contemplating different forms. During my research, my sister called and said she had been doing Transcendental Meditation for six months. There was something in her voice. A change. A quality of happiness. And I thought: That's what I want. So, in July 1973, I went to the Transcendental Meditation centre in Los Angeles and met an instructor. I liked her. She looked like Doris Day. She taught me this technique. She gave me a mantra, which is a sound-vibration-thought. You don't meditate on the meaning of it, but it's a very specific sound-vibration-thought. She took me into a little room to have my first meditation. I sat down, closed my eyes, started this mantra, and it was like I was in an elevator and they cut the cable. Boom! I fell into bliss - pure bliss. And I was just in there. Then the teacher said: It's time to come out; it's been 20 minutes. IT'S ALREADY BEEN 20 MINUTES?! I replied, shocked. And she told me to s!, because there were other people in the centre meditating. It seemed so familiar, but also so new and powerful. After that, I said the word unique should be reserved for this experience. It takes you to an ocean of pure consciousness, pure knowingness. But it's familiar, it's you. And, right away, a sense of happiness emerges - not a goofball happiness but a thick beauty. I have never missed a meditation in 34 years. I meditate once in the morning and again in the afternoon, for about 20 minutes each time. Then I go about the business of my day. And I find that the joy of doing increases. Intuition increases. The pleasure of life grows. And negativity recedes. Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Relaxation techniques can take you a little way in. That's beautiful, but it's not transcending. Transcending is its own unique thing. And why is transcending so easy? Because it's the nature of the mind to go to fields of greater happiness. It naturally wants to go. And the deeper you go, the more there is, until you hit 100% pure bliss. Transcendental Meditation is the vehicle that takes you there. It's the experience that does everything. One of the main things that got me talking publicly about Transcendental Meditation was seeing the difference it can make to kids. Kids are suffering. Stress is hitting them at a younger and younger age. And there are all these different learning disorders that I never even heard about before. At the same time, I saw the results of schools where the students and teachers practise Transcendental Meditation - where the student learns to dive within and unfold the self, that pure consciousness. Grades go up and test scores improve; students and teachers have less stress, less anxiety. The joy of learning and the joy of teaching increase. My foundation, the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, was set up to help more kids get that kind of experience. We've raised money and given it to schools throughout the world to allow tens of thousands of students to learn to meditate. It's amazing to see kids who do this. Stress just doesn't catch them; it's like water off a duck's back. I am doing this not only for the students' sake, for their own growth of consciousness, but for all of us, because we are like lightbulbs. And like lightbulbs, we can enjoy that brighter light of consciousness within, and also radiate it. I believe that the key to peace is in this. · Visit davidlynchfoundation.org http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ and askthedoctors.com http://www.askthedoctors.com/http://www.askthedoctors.com/ for information guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 attachment: lynch3.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Me, I don't believe that there exists any such animal as pure experience. All experience is experienced on top of a lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and preconditioning, and then is interpreted after the fact based on that same lifetime (or lifetimes) of learning and pre- conditioning. When I first read this it had a certain seductive logic (especially in the hot woman context). But if you push at it - where do you end up? The question you should probably be asking is Where do YOU end up? You seem to have wound up in kind of a challenged place, whereas what I said leaves me in a settled and peaceful one. If you take that to a non hot-woman context - Science knowledge - that way leads to madness perhaps? I'm thinking of post-modern Science, just a construct some might say of post-imperialist (white), Western culture (you need a lot of quite marks with this kind of stuff!). If there is no pure experience, there is nothing out there but our social or individual constructs, what is true for me may not be true for you etc etc... What is true for me is NOT true for you. Where's the problem with that? Even Maharishi has a world construct that posits this -- Knowledge is struc- tured in consciousness. If you are in UC and I am in CC or Waking state, what is true for me is clearly NOT true for you, and vice-versa. There is nothing challenging about this concept at all, unless you are attached to the notion of there being something called Truth that transcends and trumps individual, relative truth, as perceived from different states of consciousness. I am not attached to that concept; I don't believe that there is any such animal as Truth. - can you really get by with that degree of scepticism relativism? I get by quite well, thank you. But it is NOT skepticism in my case BUT relativism. I probably accept as true from at least one state of consciousness more things than you do. I've seen real levitation, and someone dis- appearing, and other siddhis. They *happened* -- *for me*, in one state of consciousness. Therefore, *for me* they have some element of truth to them, *from* that state of consciousness. They wouldn't for you, unless you saw these phenomena, too, and shared that state of consciousness. Relativism is the better word, not skepticism. Everything I have ever seen and experienced is relative to so MUCH, even the non-relative phenomena. My life and experiences led up to and colored the experiences -- even the non- relative, transcendental ones -- and that same life and experience is there after the transcendental ones have passed, and colors my remembrance of and interpretation of them. What of your claim quoted above? Is that something you take to be true which makes it some kind of exception? There was no claim above. There was only me expressing an opinion, *from* a certain state of consciousness. I might have a different opinion tomorrow, *from* a different state of consciousness. Both can be equally true, even if they completely contradict one another. Knowledge is structured in consciousness. It's a long time ago - but I remember being very impressed with the idea of Quality in Zen The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance as a way of breaking out of the subject/object epistemological trap. I must re-read it 'cos I can't seem to remember how it worked. For all your negative take on MMY - his knowledge is structured in consciousness seems to me to be very philosophically sophisticated (quite Hegelian). There is no ONE truth or reality, but an evolving dance between the self and the Other. (Quite clever for what Vaj asserts to be nothing but a get-rich-quick scam). I started answering your post before finishing reading it. (An annoying habit, but one I indulge in from time to time.) Therefore, I only saw *your* invocation of Knowledge is structured in consciousness AFTER having written what I did above. I find that amusing. If you believe what you said in your last paragraph, I don't see why you have any issue with my original opinion. I, too, think that there is no ONE truth or reality. I, too, think that one's sense of truth and reality is relative to the state of consciousness one finds oneself in, and that that sense of truth and reality is constantly evolving and changing. I believe that this sense of truth and reality is colored by everything we have ever learned or experienced in this life, and possibly in other, former lives. I do NOT believe that this sense of truth and reality is evolving and changing INTO any final or ultimate truth and reality. I suspect that it will keep evolving forever, with no end point ever reached.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:34 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Yup. Been there, done that, remember the shock of realizing that what I had been saying in intro and advanced lectures for 14 years was simply not true. I had walked away from the TMO some time earlier, but still carried with me a lot of its dogma, so it took some effort on my part to break out of the effortlessness thang and practice a form of concentration meditation. But when I did -- what a shock! My experience of transcendence was clearer than any I had previously experienced with TM. And I could get to it any time I wanted to, at will, not just sit around and wait for it to appear. What a moment of cognitive dissonance THAT was for me. Ditto here, and a shocker at the time. It was a shocker because I realized, on some level, I still held onto my precious belief that TM was the fastest boat, the bestest of the best, etc. But once it was transcended, you automatically transcended that belief. I feel that was part of the shock, in addition to fully transcending the interdependently arisen transcendent (despite the fact I'd had clear experiences of transcending for years), I was free and beyond. Immediately any attachment to the technique--and clearly I had accumulated attachment to the technique--fell away. Bye bye. Then I understood why it's not only paramount to not be attached to ANY technique, but to learn to be able to dissolve the technique itself. Ultimately we all will have to leave whatever technique we practice behind. So why not just know how to do that?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
curtisdeltablues wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... I noticed this too with the extras on Inland Empire when he told one of the crew who had been partying the night before and had a bit of a hangover that they would get him on TM and that would help. But I thought that is so unrealistic these days at the price of TM. Most other groups like Sivananda have their meditation courses around $100 point and are taught on an easily assessable weekend workshop. The days where people had time for the seven steps are long gone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: lazy water (c)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's another composition of mine. Enjoy. http://tinyurl.com/3u2nkk Thanks. Do you play it as well? How do you record it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
off_world_beings wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... Why is this a curious claim? You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. OffWorld The real goal of meditation is to get the kundalini to rise so that it opens the crowd chakra and gives you enlightenment. Now that is a bit of a esoteric explanation for the masses but what Indian holy men will tell you. This process, depending on the individual, usually takes some time and needs to be done carefully. Yogic meditation techniques will do this carefully. However the first time I tried meditation, out of a book, several years before I learned TM the kundalini rose and opened the crown chakra. I was very disconcerting to say the least because I had no idea what happened. I guess I must have been sitting around in previous lifetimes practicing meditation that just one session could do this but it has also happened to other folks too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. I have. Works great, thanks. The experience I alluded to earlier, my first experience with a form of meditation based more on concentration than effortlessness, took place in the Los Angeles Convention Center, surrounded by maybe 1,000 people off the street, connected by nothing more than curiosity and a desire to see the new guy in town on the L.A. spiritual circuit and the willingness to pay 2 dollars each to see him. I approached the evening with more than a little skepticism and more than a little negative mood- making. If I was moodmaking anything, it was that I would feel and experience absolutely NOTHING as a result of seeing this teacher and trying his style of meditation. I was jaded, burned fucking OUT, man. I had walked away from the TMO some years earlier, and didn't want any part of any other spiritual teacher or technique of meditation. I had just come out of the TMO, so I believed that I had meditation down pat, man. I was an expert. I had nothing to learn from this new guy in town. And yet. Just for the hell of it, I suspended disbelief for a short time, and gave his idea of meditation a try, AS HE TAUGHT IT. I didn't try to change it by thinking, He's telling me to focus on X and *stay* focused on it. That CAN'T be right because of everything I already know, so I'll just practice the same old same old laissez-faire technique of focusing on the object of meditation only as long as other thoughts don't intrude. I COULD have done that. A great DEAL of conditioning and programming was telling me to do just that. But for some reason I just said to myself, Self, fuck it. Tonight I'm just gonna go with it, and try doing this technique exactly as taught, in Beginner's Mind. And voila, I had the most smokin' meditations of my entire life, *including* the periods I had spent in what I considered CC on extended TM residence courses. And the result just fuckin' blew my mind. As Vaj and Hugo said, it was *liberating*. The very experience of doing something I had been told COULD NOT POSSIBLY WORK to bring about the extended experience of samadhi, when practiced, brought about the extended experience of samadhi. I spent more time in that three-hour public talk in the L.A. Convention Center in pure, undiluted, thoughtless samadhi than I had spent on 6-week ATR courses in Switzerland. Blew my fuckin' mind, man. Made me realize that I still had things to learn. And that's a *good* experience.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:42 PM, yifuxero wrote: --A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. I was not in a retreat setting, just at home. It doesn't matter where I practice, if I have the intention to practice, that's all that is necessary. Repeatability is excellent. I've tried shamatha, vipassana, shamatha-vipassana, ishta-devata meditation, tantric meditation and open presence meditation on planes, cars, etc. They work fine for me. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: TurquoiseB: Me, I don't believe that there exists any such animal as pure experience. etc etc RichardM: When I first read this it had a certain seductive logic (especially in the hot woman context). But if you push at it - where do you end up? TurquoiseB: The question you should probably be asking is Where do YOU end up? You seem to have wound up in kind of a challenged place, whereas what I said leaves me in a settled and peaceful one. Well... Why is that better? Why should the challenged place not be the correct place? Wasn't it said some place that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied? But then I'm missing your point aren't I by referring to a correct place as opposed to correct as it seems to me place I guess. There is nothing challenging about this concept at all, unless you are attached to the notion of there being something called Truth that transcends and trumps individual, relative truth, as perceived from different states of consciousness. I am not attached to that concept; I don't believe that there is any such animal as Truth. What I meant by pushing at it is to take very seriously the consequences of your thinking (all rhetoric aside). Just to take a silly example - are you going to say that the ancients who believed the earth was flat had their own truth, and we have ours, and there is nothing more to be said about it? You embrace relativism but object to scepticism. But I think you protest too much. Your extreme (in my view) relativism fully implies an extreme scepticism. Or can you explain how knowledge of any kind whatsoever - whether it be your knowledge of how to tie your shoelace or the claims of quantum mechanics - can be possible if, as you say, I don't believe that there is any such animal as Truth (itself a knowledge claim of course). Shoelaces like quanta are not just whatever we take them to be: they can stand against us, resist us, and fail to be coerced by our will. Yes, the Truth IS a big beast, and she's prowling out there!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You embrace relativism but object to scepticism. But I think you protest too much. Your extreme (in my view) relativism fully implies an extreme scepticism. Or can you explain how knowledge of any kind whatsoever - whether it be your knowledge of how to tie your shoelace or the claims of quantum mechanics - can be possible if, as you say, I don't believe that there is any such animal as Truth (itself a knowledge claim of course). Shoelaces like quanta are not just whatever we take them to be: they can stand against us, resist us, and fail to be coerced by our will. Yes, the Truth IS a big beast, and she's prowling out there! I'm pretty sure this is my last post of the week. So I might as well go out on a high point. :-) I was a Boy Scout and a sailor. I know -- off the top of my head -- 37 different ways to tie my shoes. That you know only one does not make it the only one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--Your repeatability claim has no statistical relevance. Repeatability must cut across large numbers of samples and diverse subjects. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:42 PM, yifuxero wrote: --A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. I was not in a retreat setting, just at home. It doesn't matter where I practice, if I have the intention to practice, that's all that is necessary. Repeatability is excellent. I've tried shamatha, vipassana, shamatha-vipassana, ishta-devata meditation, tantric meditation and open presence meditation on planes, cars, etc. They work fine for me. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Spiritually Hot in FF, Meditating with Karunamayi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: You embrace relativism but object to scepticism. But I think you protest too much. Your extreme (in my view) relativism fully implies an extreme scepticism. Or can you explain how knowledge of any kind whatsoever - whether it be your knowledge of how to tie your shoelace or the claims of quantum mechanics - can be possible if, as you say, I don't believe that there is any such animal as Truth (itself a knowledge claim of course). Shoelaces like quanta are not just whatever we take them to be: they can stand against us, resist us, and fail to be coerced by our will. Yes, the Truth IS a big beast, and she's prowling out there! I'm pretty sure this is my last post of the week. So I might as well go out on a high point. :-) I was a Boy Scout and a sailor. I know -- off the top of my head -- 37 different ways to tie my shoes. That you know only one does not make it the only one. There we are you see. That's it! Me, as a little kid I was always running around with my shoelaces undone and tripping up for want of good lace-technology. That's coloured my whole outlook on life. One day I'll get over it , try some new knots and move on, eh?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
Maybe for androids and who gives a shit about them? I didn't know the world had turned into a bunch of scientists? It is so funny, being a computer scientist myself, to hear ordinary people talk like they have lab coats on when I know damn well they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. tertonzeno wrote: --Your repeatability claim has no statistical relevance. Repeatability must cut across large numbers of samples and diverse subjects. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:42 PM, yifuxero wrote: --A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. I was not in a retreat setting, just at home. It doesn't matter where I practice, if I have the intention to practice, that's all that is necessary. Repeatability is excellent. I've tried shamatha, vipassana, shamatha-vipassana, ishta-devata meditation, tantric meditation and open presence meditation on planes, cars, etc. They work fine for me. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Practical Question on GP in Fairfield
How would one find info on attending GP in Fairfield? Is it OK to just show up, is an application involved, etc.? Thanks!
[FairfieldLife] Fairfield bars now smoke free
http://tinyurl.com/6nojfb
[FairfieldLife] Re: Practical Question on GP in Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, min.pige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would one find info on attending GP in Fairfield? Is it OK to just show up, is an application involved, etc.? Thanks! I don't see a course for July 18 (the next res course does not start until 25 Jul) at the Fairfield Peace Palace site: http://fairfield.globalcountry.net/calendar.html but you could ask them what's up. My guess is that there will certainly be some function at the Dome, but you would need a current Dome badge to attend -- you can probably get a guest badge -- ask the Peace Palace.
[FairfieldLife] Re: lazy water (c)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: Here's another composition of mine. Enjoy. http://tinyurl.com/3u2nkk Thanks. Do you play it as well? How do you record it? I used to use a program called Music Maker (great interface, but too buggy...)-- and have now switched to one branded by Sony called ACID. Both are basically multitrack assemblers for music loops covering most instruments, averaging 2-3 seconds in length. I have assembled libraries of ~10,000 loops covering many different music genres (rock, hip hop, ambient, movie score, classical, techno, funk, etc.). So I assemble about 40 or 50 of these loops together, across ~10 tracks, usually beginning with 3 or 4 drum/percussion tracks and then adding melodies, bass, rhythms, etc. Last I play with sound levels, builds and fades until I like it. The cool thing is after I have composed a song and saved it as a jpeg, it is mine to copyright and distribute as my own, royalty free. it takes me about 6-8 hours to build each song. I have been a visual artist since I was a kid, and this is another great way to express those similar impulses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--I've published more papers than you will in a hundred lifetimes. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe for androids and who gives a shit about them? I didn't know the world had turned into a bunch of scientists? It is so funny, being a computer scientist myself, to hear ordinary people talk like they have lab coats on when I know damn well they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. tertonzeno wrote: --Your repeatability claim has no statistical relevance. Repeatability must cut across large numbers of samples and diverse subjects. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:42 PM, yifuxero wrote: --A lot depends on when and where, independent of the technique. Sure, if you're in a 3 week retreat with some Rinpoche and everybody is meditating, transcendence!. But where's the technique you can take with you, any time, any place; even on a plane? Try Vipassana on a plane. I was not in a retreat setting, just at home. It doesn't matter where I practice, if I have the intention to practice, that's all that is necessary. Repeatability is excellent. I've tried shamatha, vipassana, shamatha-vipassana, ishta- devata meditation, tantric meditation and open presence meditation on planes, cars, etc. They work fine for me. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... Why is this a curious claim? You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. Neither is the process of thinking the mantra and taking it as it comes but it leads to transcendence right? How exactly does he know that none of these practices lead to the same thing? Your point is nonsense and applies equally to the practice of TM then. Correct. But IF any of them lead to transcendental (field) phenomena, THEN they ARE Transcenddental Meditation. Maharishi made this point many times. IF it leads to transcendental consciousness, THEN it IS a meditation (process of the brain) that let's the brain to TRANSCEND (field experience, effects, brain coherence). This is not proof of anything. This is hypothesis and conclusion, so proves nothing, but sets up that necessary logic. Now, look at all of Fred Travis' studies and couple that with what Alexander wrote about in that chapter in that book on psychology, and other places, and you will conclude that 1. Something is going on, 2. it looks like field coherence 3. and it that spills into mind and life. AND, it has not been seen in this correlated fashion (several related findings and inter-disciplinary correlations) in other meditations as of yet. THEY MAY produce the same results, but there is so far no proof of that, and IF they do, THEN Maharishi says, they are the same thing. IF it produces trancendence (or whatever you want to call it), THEN it is a meditation that produces trancendence, and therefore, can be called Transcendental Meditation. Now, despite Vaj rantings, there is no body of evidence remotely close on other meditations, but that does not mean they don't work. Try to wrap your head around this without using your silly prejudices. Transcendental Meditation is meditation that causes trancendental (field/coherenct) experiences/phenomena/observations. It is the only one that shows a correlation for this - because of Travis and Alexander (Alexander has shown the psychological correlates of reported transcendence, the correlates (found in the mainstream research) that correlates the same psychological testing and reports to high functioning IQ and EQ types), and the coupling of that to EEG that Travis showed (IN RESPECTED PEER-REVIEWED SCEINTIFIC JOURNALS). Now let's bring in Lyubimov (non-meditator, highly respected Russian neurosceintist) and his observations about the EGG in TM, which back up all of it (and here's where Vaj says something like EEG in other research of Buddhists or Mindfulness (unpublished though) that shows the same. Well, IF it is TRANCENDENCE, then it is the SAME THING !...it IS meditation that produces transcendence (transcendental meditation)...but there IS NO PROOF that they are the same in any way whatsoever, and the other meditation are weak in the research and are weak in what that research means, and it correlates to nothing known in any other field of any significance as of now. With Travis, Alexander (looking at correlates from maintream psychology research) and other studies, you have nothing remotely close to the correlated evidence that TM has. Not remotely in the same league. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT DO THE SAME THING, but there is no EVIDENCE of anything useful or similar, and you will have to wait AT LEAST 20 years for that body of evidence. In the meantime, WWIII is being strarted right now. Enjoy your world war. I'll be...OffWorld IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. You don't even understand basic English and logic. IF you are contemplating, THEN you are not experiencing what is transcendent to contemplation. IF you are not transcending thought (and all activity), THEN you are in the field of activity, and are not able to transcend it. This is basic English language that has been around for centuries, even thousands of years in Western philosophical (and Eastern) traditions. Maharishi did not invent this language. You can't mix the terms. Transcending is transcending, and contempalting, mindfulness, and conentration...ARE NOT. This is basic fucking English, and you people don't get it. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer Which shows what kind of person you really are, and why MANY people left the TM movement because of pretentious people like you who are now out and ranting pretentiously about it, leaving the decent people still in the TM movement. OffWorld What's your beef Offworld?. I've found out that Barry and Vaj are right by my own experimenting with different techniques, I've been amazed that I can transcend to an exquisite place just by shifting my attention slightly. So?.. who cares about your own personal experience? Nobody. In the meantime WW III can start while you claim hundreds of studies are NOT important. What is not important is people's personal experiences that are uncorroborated in masses of studies. THAT is NOT important. Might as well pray to the spagetthi monstor and tell people it is good. Without vast amount of published research it is irrelevane. So come on OffWorld why do you object so much? Because WW3 is starting you stupid #%$@, and the body of scientific evidence is there to prevent that, and even if it WRONG, it is the only body of evidence that can be used for this argument for meditation for world peace (and it appears to be largely valid, so it is worth a try.) Other than that, the world is going to hell in a handbasket so fast, you will not have sceintific world anymore, to prove your meditation is good for anything. Good luck with your New World Entropy. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] feste37, tell me about yourself
I noticed your post which said that you do not meditate. I take it that you walked away from the TMO with no hard feelings? You on occasion defend the TMO and also expressed surprised that it took Knapp several tries before he left the organization. Were you a TM initiator/teacher? Did you work for the movement? I am curious because it seems like you have a much different point of view than others here, but I have not got my arms around your point of view. Thanks for any info you are willing to share. Ruthie
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Some forms of meditation are just contemplation or concentration; they'll keep you on the surface. You won't transcend: you won't get that fourth state of consciousness and you won't get that bliss. You'll stay on the surface. Having admitted that he only contemplated different meditations and only practiced TM this is a curious claim. I wonder where he might have gotten such information... It's an insidious bit of brainwashing that is. I swallowed it and only learned otherwise when I started practising different types of meditation easily and effortlessly. Yup. Been there, done that, remember the shock of realizing that what I had been saying in intro and advanced lectures for 14 years was simply not true. I had walked away from the TMO some time earlier, but still carried with me a lot of its dogma, so it took some effort on my part to break out of the effortlessness thang and practice a form of concentration meditation. But when I did -- what a shock! My experience of transcendence was clearer than any I had previously experienced with TM. And I could get to it any time I wanted to, at will, not just sit around and wait for it to appear. What a moment of cognitive dissonance THAT was for me. Confession time. I remember going into a Krisha Temple and and adopting the patronising and superior air of the True Believer saying to a TM friend Well, they're very nice people but they don't get the coherence do they. Sigh. I'd slap me if said that now. It's one of the toughest aspects of the TMO condi- tioning to get over. So MUCH of the dogma was about elitism -- TM was the best, and ALL other techniques were inferior, and the tendency to reinterpret all other spiritual teachings in history in terms of TM, such that that's what Christ and Buddha were really teaching -- that it's really tough to get past that and back into Beginner's Mind. We were all taught for so many years (or decades) that we were NOT beginners. We were, in fact, advanced, Governors of the Age of Enlightenment. We were the ELITE, those who trod the highest path. That's some heavy conditioning TO get past. Boy, I must have been part of a different Movement and attended different classes than Barry and Hugo. Where and when were you taught that all other techniques were inferior? I never was. Sure, there were people AROUND me that were certainly like that but me and my friends would, appropriately, just roll our eyes at them. Take a superior attitude towards other practises? Heck, 90% of everyone I ever met in TM did something else and would, more than not, speak of the other teachers or practises with pride and respect.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Your Daily Gab Stats --- Looks like some folks were planning to be on vacation next week. Yahoo Groups Post Counter = Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 28 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 5 00:00:00 2008 -- Searching... 898 messages as of (UTC) Fri Jul 4 00:22:09 2008 Member Posts sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]53 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 51 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 50 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]50 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 50 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 49 sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]49 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 41 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]41 geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED]41 new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 36 ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]36 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27 Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]27 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED]25 yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22 Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22 matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED]18 dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED]15 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12 guyfawkes91 [EMAIL PROTECTED]12 tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12 Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]8 feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED]8 R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED]7 Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Kenny H [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED]4 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED]4 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com4 Dick Mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 jyouells2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 John [EMAIL PROTECTED]3 Sunyata [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED]2 satvadude108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sriswamijisadhaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]2 koesje1958 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 film_man_pdx [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Mahesh Subrahmanyam [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 william108wm [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 mukesh bhatia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Springfield_Slim [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 min.pige [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 55 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] Crown chakras and enlightenment (was Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian)
Wait; I'm at a loss here. Help me out. -- Bhairitu wrote: The real goal of meditation is to get the kundalini to rise so that it opens the crowd chakra and gives you enlightenment. We've had people in this forum confess to being enlightened, but I don't recall talk about open crown chakras being a pre-requisite. Can we get some confirmation on these mechanics? Can people here speak to this point? Now that is a bit of a esoteric explanation for the masses but what Indian holy men will tell you. I've rather lost interest in what holy men say now that peers can speak from first-hand experience. This process, depending on the individual, usually takes some time and needs to be done carefully. Yogic meditation techniques will do this carefully. A chum of mine had his crown chakra open during a vipassana retreat with the Insight Meditation Society (http://dharma.org/ims/). To hear him describe the experience, it sounded delicious, but for years afterward, he was - and come to think of it, still is - not very keen on being a householder, and doesn't seem to be any healthier and happier than he was years ago. I wondered if it was too much too soon, frankly. I'll ask him about this next time I see him. However the first time I tried meditation, out of a book, several years before I learned TM the kundalini rose and opened the crown chakra. I was very disconcerting to say the least because I had no idea what happened. I guess I must have been sitting around in previous lifetimes practicing meditation that just one session could do this but it has also happened to other folks too. So, Bhairitu old man, has the open crown chakra led to enlightenment for you? If you've previously shared the story here, I missed it. Feel free to elaborate! Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a superior attitude towards other practises? Heck, 90% of everyone I ever met in TM did something else and would, more than not, speak of the other teachers or practises with pride and respect. Then why are the guys who mess with other stuff, like lady saints and joytish, banned from the domes? My TB friends say other practices are fine but it will take you many lifetimes to get where TM gets you. Superhighway stuff.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Crown chakras and enlightenment (was Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian)
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:40 PM, Patrick Gillam wrote: Wait; I'm at a loss here. Help me out. -- Bhairitu wrote: The real goal of meditation is to get the kundalini to rise so that it opens the crowd chakra and gives you enlightenment. We've had people in this forum confess to being enlightened, but I don't recall talk about open crown chakras being a pre-requisite. Can we get some confirmation on these mechanics? Can people here speak to this point? When you approach the Advaita way of seeing from the POV of mantra and tantra, the way they describe it (the yogic path to CC) is that shiva must reunite with shakti to birth the permanent witness of CC. In practical and experiential terms this means that the shakti of your TM mantra needs to be experienced at the level union with your own pure consciousness. This is an experience that is typical of the upper head chakras and then beyond all of the microcosm to the point where it merges with the macrocosm. People who know what this means in their own experience will therefore recognize when others miss this style of realization. Most if not all of the realizers I've heard here on FFL don't seem to get it. They're stuck somewhere else. But, unfortunately, just the mere mention of these signs here will almost always assure appropriation of these same signs (or variation thereupon) by pseudo-realizers. The ego can and will always take anything and everything it can as it's own. Now that is a bit of a esoteric explanation for the masses but what Indian holy men will tell you. I've rather lost interest in what holy men say now that peers can speak from first-hand experience. This process, depending on the individual, usually takes some time and needs to be done carefully. Yogic meditation techniques will do this carefully. A chum of mine had his crown chakra open during a vipassana retreat with the Insight Meditation Society (http://dharma.org/ims/). To hear him describe the experience, it sounded delicious, but for years afterward, he was - and come to think of it, still is - not very keen on being a householder, and doesn't seem to be any healthier and happier than he was years ago. I wondered if it was too much too soon, frankly. I'll ask him about this next time I see him. It sounds like you found the perfect question. It's healthy to ask such questions. But now that you mentioned it here, I hope you'll share the answer here! :-) However the first time I tried meditation, out of a book, several years before I learned TM the kundalini rose and opened the crown chakra. I was very disconcerting to say the least because I had no idea what happened. I guess I must have been sitting around in previous lifetimes practicing meditation that just one session could do this but it has also happened to other folks too. So, Bhairitu old man, has the open crown chakra led to enlightenment for you? If you've previously shared the story here, I missed it. Feel free to elaborate! Thanks. Even if one doesn't achieve perfect enlightenment from the bioenergetic paradigm shift above makara point (as the kundalinicare people grok it above the third eye) one at least has the ability, having had that fundamental shift as a piece and a part of one's being, to flash into that reality (at will). If you've ever had the experience of being in a crowd of strangers and run upon the face of an old friend, you know the shift, the feeling of joy. Oh my old friend, I missed you so much, is the type of deep feeling. That type of recognition gives a style of EEG which is called gamma waves. It's a momentary glimpse that gives spontaneous joy. Most of us will have known that type of thing in our lives. Imagine having at at will, for as long as one needs to rewire our neuro-circuits, that type of recognition. Gamma waves are also an artifact of that which causes activation of new neural circuitry. These are typical crown level capabilities IME. Don't leave home without 'em. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian
So you are a printer by profession? :-D yifuxero wrote: --I've published more papers than you will in a hundred lifetimes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Crown chakras and enlightenment (was Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian)
Patrick Gillam wrote: Wait; I'm at a loss here. Help me out. -- Bhairitu wrote: So, Bhairitu old man, has the open crown chakra led to enlightenment for you? If you've previously shared the story here, I missed it. Feel free to elaborate! Thanks. That first experience was disorienting as it is for most people who have the kundalini rise like that (without a guru's help). It made later attempts far easier. I won't claim enlightenment just experiences (or tastes) of it. I'm sure many here and perhaps you have had those experiences. It IS an ongoing process (even if you think you're enlightened there is always more). However I would hope far fewer the accidental rise of the kundalini as that is not a good thing necessarily. And you do need the rewiring to make the experience permanent.
[FairfieldLife] Crown chakras and enlightenment (was Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you approach the Advaita way of seeing from the POV of mantra and tantra, the way they describe it (the yogic path to CC) is that shiva must reunite with shakti to birth the permanent witness of CC. In practical and experiential terms this means that the shakti of your TM mantra needs to be experienced at the level union with your own pure consciousness. This is an experience that is typical of the upper head chakras and then beyond all of the microcosm to the point where it merges with the macrocosm. People who know what this means in their own experience will therefore recognize when others miss this style of realization. Most if not all of the realizers I've heard here on FFL don't seem to get it. They're stuck somewhere else. But, unfortunately, just the mere mention of these signs here will almost always assure appropriation of these same signs (or variation thereupon) by pseudo-realizers. The ego can and will always take anything and everything it can as it's own. Correct-The susuhmna IS the path of transcending, the serpent fire or (shakti, coiled around the muladhar chakra, prana) carries the consciousness aloft to higher and higher states of ascension (chakras). The prana isn't the consciousness itself only the vehicle which the jiva rides so to speak to ultimate reunion with Shiva the higher Self. Each chakra has a distinct sound associated with it which is universal or common to all people (MMY didn't tell us this), starting with the muladhar chakra as the sound of a buzzing bee, the Svadhisthan chakra the sound of a beautiful flute, etc. Maharishi didn't teach this because he wasn't teaching Yoga per se, he was just teaching a lite version of Yoga adaptable to modern society(he left his teaching incomplete however, IMO).
[FairfieldLife] Crown chakras and enlightenment (was Re: David Lynch in today's Guardian)
(SniP) The real goal of meditation is to get the kundalini to rise so that it opens the crowd chakra and gives you enlightenment. We've had people in this forum confess to being enlightened, but I don't recall talk about open crown chakras being a pre-requisite. Can we get some confirmation on these mechanics? Can people here speak to this point? (sNip) Ok, Let's see? Much of it depends on what method of description that one wishes to use to describe these different 'states of consciousness'. One way is the describe this in terms of 'energy centers at points in the body, called Chakras'. Now, each of these energy points, and these are the main one's(there are many others described in Chinese Accupuncture Literature)... But anyway, back to the point, each energy center has it's own concern. The root chakra is concerned with surviving, physically in this world. It can be strong and ground, or it can be weak and fearful, and violent. Sexual chakra positively is connected with pleasure, creation, childlike, fun. In the negative, in can be associated with jealosy, lust, greed, and so on. Solar Plexus chakra, is will..what do you will? Ego wills, or does 'Higher Power' rule? 'On earth as it is in heaven. So, this is one of the 'keys' to doing divine work on earth is aligning as Jesus said, the 'crown chakra' where the 'soul energy' resides, with the will, the Solar Plexus. Also important is the heart chakra, to feel the pain there, release the heart to more and more open energy. Throat chakra: speak the truth. Third eye, see the truth. The Crown Chakra, is the 'letting in' of the 'Soul's Energy'. Since the individual soul is a reflection of all souls, then you get the connection... R.G.
