[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > [...] > > Similarly, different forms of meditation DO NOT "have the > > same thing to say." They are as different as night and > > day. For example, most of the forms I practice believe > > that the effectiveness of the meditation comes from how > > long one is able to spend in samadhi during each session. > > The ideal is pretty much the entire meditation session, > > with no more than a dozen thoughts appearing in an hour. > > > > Does that sound like your TM meditation, Lawson? Does it > > sound like the form I am describing "has much the same > > thing to say" as Maharishi did? > > Doen't sound like what I call "samadhi" either. > > Be interesting to see if your "samadhi" has the same physological > correlates as my "samadhi." For example, is your form of meditation > associated with reduced thalamic activity? > > Not, its always possible, as Vaj says, that the TM interpretation of > samadhi is wrong, or even that more than one physiological signature > corresponds to the same spiritual state, but I doubt it. Think this through, Lawson. There HAVE to be more than one physiological signature that corresponds to the presence of samadhi, or enlightenment could not exist. Enlightenment is PC + activity, remember? Depending on the activity, different physiological state. You have this tendency to mistake the cart for the horse, Lawson. "TM scientists," whose *real* goal was to "prove" that TM works, find some physio- logical condition, and DECLARE that to be samadhi. It isn't. It's just a set of physiological con- ditions. I, for one, have no problem with the idea that there could be a *different* set of these physiological conditions for every person who experiences for every person who experiences sam- adhi, because the map is not the territory. The physiological state is not the state. You think it is. To be honest, however, I DON'T CARE. Unlike you, I have nothing to "prove" with regard to the forms of meditation that I practice. I like them, they seem to have benefits for me, in and out of medi- tation. End of story. Who CARES what anyone else believes about them? > Which may make me closed-minded in your eyes, along with the many > other negative qualities you have listed. > > /shrug. You have many positive qualities, as well. But the annoying one that keeps getting challenged here is that you care VERY MUCH what other people believe about the form of meditation you like and the world view that it espouses. You have this need to "prove" that it's The Best. I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. It's an ego-obsession, and the saddest part is, it's not even YOUR ego- obsession, it's Maharishi's. You picked the obsession up from HIM. If no one had ever told you that TM was The Best, you would not be obsessing over trying to "prove" it. In the traditions in which I learned these other forms of meditation, no one would ever even *conceive* of referring to their technique of meditation as "The Best." They would present it the way it was presented to them, Just One More Technique Of Meditation. I applaud your fascination with the TM science, dude, but the obsessional nature of that fascination leads me to believe that you're using it as a crutch to support a technique that doesn't give you many personal, subjective benefits. My suspicion for why you are so obsessed with the physiological "definition" of trans- cendence or samadhi is that you rarely, if ever, exper- ience samadhi yourself. If you had, you wouldn't be trying so hard to prove TM "The Best." Just swimming in samadhi a few times a day, for extended periods of time, would have washed away all the puny concepts of "bestness." What I don't think you understand is that I LIKE you, Lawson. I think you're basically a really nice guy who would be a lot nicer if you weren't so constantly in "reaction mode," compelled to answer and rebut something someone has said here that challenges your world view, in a kind of wrestling "tag team" match here with your partner Judy. Try to remember that it isn't even YOUR world view. You're spending all this time trying to protect and defend a belief system that was taught to you by the guy who was so superstitious that he'd refuse to enter a room if it contained an upside-down chair. How good a world view is it likely to be? What makes Fairfield Life such a cool place is that it's full of people who have found their OWN world views and their OWN belief systems. They don't rely on those of others. They take the good parts of each of the ones they have been taught about, throw away the bad parts, add their own experience, and on the whole, they're happy with the result, and happy, period. When someone challenges this world view that they have constructed, they shrug and *stay* happy. Compare and contrast to someone who clings somewhat desperately to one an
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > A jumping to 10-12th effects already!? Does that imply you are > > > reasonaably satisfied that the 1-9th order effects are valid? If > > not, > > > you seem dangerously close to strawman territory. > > > > As I say, they are the only effects I'm interested in. I can't > > see the point of proving that if I throw a brick at someone they > > will be pissed off. It's blatantly obvious. Less obvious is that > > people being "bad" affect the weather or tectonic activity. The > > theory to test is this one because it has few alternative > > explanations other than Shit Happens. Which is where I'm putting > > my money, so someone independent had better set the ball rolling. > > > Rich, > I am mostly in agreement with you. However the argument falls apart > when you invite an "independent" individual into the fray. The heart of > this thesis is to simulate karma to understand its workings. The > experiment requires dispassionate reason to take data and analyze the > evidence. Why leave questions like this to those who subscribe to > bronze age folktales? By definition these children have supplanted > reason for fantasy. Hardly the sorts we want mucking around in a lab. > s. If it requires dispassionate reason then an indie is the man for the job no? Thing is, scientific understanding evolves through people seeing errors in explanations and coming up with more refined ideas, in this case the error would be bad things happening but without any obvious or understandable reason. The karma idea is that this already happens and it's due to stuff we did in the past or stress in collective consciousness. If you had someone who believed in those they would be interpreting things as being like that anyway, so really the only use of our experiment is to demonstrate that additions to our ideas about plate tectonics etc are unneccessary. Kind of like the solipsism belief being an unneccessary and more complex addition to what we observe. But you need the data that there is an anomaly there to start with which, I suspect might be the tricky bit. And then a testable idea like my 10 commandment-breaks, there are plenty of stories in the bible and elsewhere about cities destroyed because of naughtiness, unless it's all too subtle to tell apart. Interesting idea though, I'll put it before the Ignobel committee and see if anyone has the career to spare. I'm sure someone could say that failure to confirm the idea might be your own karma though. I hope Deutsch is taking that into account with his quantum computer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
(snip) > > >> Hey, I mean, Obama is neither black nor white, right? :):) (snip) Yeah, Barack Obama had a black father and a white mother... That was really his fault, I guess... Plus white leaders are so much better; let me name some... George W. Bush Ronald Reagan Tzar Putin Adolf H. All of the White peices of feces of the Third Reich. Beaven Morris Pontius Pilot Donald Trump LBJ Nixon Kissenger Karl Rove Bill Crystol Joseph Stalin KKK Caesar Caligula Most of the other Caesars Most of the Royality of Europe now and in the past. ON and on, White People are no better than Black People. Just White People are generally more intellectual, arrogant and tend to be pricks when they get a little power.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sparaig wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > wrote: > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Good Point.> Someone told me that I had the habit of thinking in > >>> > >> total terms either black or white... > >> > >>> And, that it would be good for me to accept the 'grey areas' of > >>> > >> life's experience sometimes... > >> > >>> Sometimes things just aren't black or white...but grey is sometimes > >>> > >> OK> > >> > >> Hey, I mean, Obama is neither black nor white, right? :):) > >> > >> > > > > One part black, one part American, and 999 parts Arab Fundamentalist > > Islamic Terrorist Fist- > > jabbing Satan-worshiper, not to mention, baby-eater in his spare time... > > > > Lawson > Are you quoting somebody or are you really that demented? > My own words, take them for what you will... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: Anti-Science Non-meditators Must be Stopped
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Om, it is said the Committee is arranging with the nuero-physio- ccology lab on MUM-campus to cert August Tm-jihad course participants on the smmer TM-jihad camp course. TM-Field command positions will be filled at TM-jihad camp based on > scientific arrival of coeffienents of alighnment with the Laws of > Nature. A meta-ocrachy of science, field positions will be given out on the completion of the TM-jihad course based on product of the co- effiencent of the elighnment with natural law (logrithmec scale) times the numbeer of years meditating with the trademarked technique of TM. Feel the force Luke.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: Anti-Science Non-meditators Must be Stopped
Om, it is said the Committee is arranging with the nuero-physio-ccology lab on MUM-campus to cert August Tm-jihad course participants on the smmer TM-jihad camp course. TM-Field command positions will be filled at TM-jihad camp based on scientific arrival of coeffienents of alighnment with the Laws of Nature. A meta-ocrachy of science, field positions will be given out on the completion of the TM-jihad course based on product of the co- effiencent of the elighnment with natural law (logrithmec scale) times the numbeer of years meditating with the trademarked technique of TM. Get your meditation checked before, Jair Guru Dev, -Doug in FF
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
sparaig wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." wrote: >> >> >>> Good Point.> Someone told me that I had the habit of thinking in >>> >> total terms either black or white... >> >>> And, that it would be good for me to accept the 'grey areas' of >>> >> life's experience sometimes... >> >>> Sometimes things just aren't black or white...but grey is sometimes >>> >> OK> >> >> Hey, I mean, Obama is neither black nor white, right? :):) >> >> > > One part black, one part American, and 999 parts Arab Fundamentalist Islamic > Terrorist Fist- > jabbing Satan-worshiper, not to mention, baby-eater in his spare time... > > Lawson Are you quoting somebody or are you really that demented?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." wrote: > > > Good Point.> Someone told me that I had the habit of thinking in > total terms either black or white... > > And, that it would be good for me to accept the 'grey areas' of > life's experience sometimes... > > Sometimes things just aren't black or white...but grey is sometimes > OK> > > Hey, I mean, Obama is neither black nor white, right? :):) > One part black, one part American, and 999 parts Arab Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist Fist- jabbing Satan-worshiper, not to mention, baby-eater in his spare time... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good Point.> Someone told me that I had the habit of thinking in total terms either black or white... > And, that it would be good for me to accept the 'grey areas' of life's experience sometimes... > Sometimes things just aren't black or white...but grey is sometimes OK> Hey, I mean, Obama is neither black nor white, right? :):)
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > "As I pointed out several times, making the Shankaracharya lineage that > MMY supported the custodian of all the land and buildings around the > world > that are being/have been built under the auspices of the Swami > Brahamananda > Trust makes MMY's choice for shankaracharya and his lineage the most > wealthy and powerful in all of India." > > > Lawson, > >Can you point me to any more detail on the above quote? Does that > include the peace palaces and towers etc.? Any info on the board of > directors for the SBS trust? > > Thanks, > http://www.globalgoodnews.com/world-peace-a.html?art=12006132879728764 [...] In order to preserve this supreme gift, Maharishi had founded the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust. Dr Morris explained: 'This Trust, named for Guru Dev, has come about only yesterday because of Maharishi's successful promotion of administration of eternal silence for the whole world. Because of his success in that, so it was required that this Brahamanand Saraswati Trust should be formed. This Trust will secure permanent invincibility for the whole future. Just as the present has risen to that status, so the whole future must be secured in that status of invincibility, and this trust named for Guru Dev will accomplish this. 'It will do it by establishing a Reserve Fund, an endowment fund whose interest will support the Vedic Pandits to perform Yagyas** and Graha Shanti for all 192 countries of the world generation after generation. Through the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust there will always be sufficient funds to fully support all the Vedic Pandits at the Brahmasthan (centre point) of India, at the Jyotir Lingas, in the 48 Brahmanand Saraswati Nagars, and in all the Maharishi Towers of Invincibility, including all those Jyotishis *** providing security to every nation by looking to the Kundali and to the Kurma chakra of the nation and making sure no ill, no catastrophe, no negativity will ever befall the nation again. 'This is what this Trust will accomplish, and because it will perpetually be there, there will never be any lack of support for the Vedic Pandits' performances to achieve this reality of perpetual invincibility. Another glorious feature of the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust is the structure of its leadership, which Maharishi designed yesterday. Everything that is happening now comes under the blessings of our Holy Tradition of Masters, the dawn of administration of eternal silence guiding the activity of all life on earth to be heavenly, to be invincible. All of that is the blessing of our Holy Tradition of Masters, of our great Vedic Tradition of Masters. Therefore now and in all future generations, the Patron of the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust will be His Holiness the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (India), and we are happy that already His Holiness Shankaracharya-ji has acceded to take this great position as the Patron of the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust yesterday. 'The perpetual President of the Trust will be His Majesty Maharaja Nader Raam and that is because he is that ruler of the world from the field of eternal silence. He is soaked in the eternal silent administration of Raja Raam the Great, lauded in the Ramayan. Maharaja-ji is in that level of grandeur and dignity and fulfilment of administration in silence, so he alone can be the President of the Brahmananda Saraswati Trust. 'The Trust will be led by a Global Council, which will consist of: the Purusha** Rajas with Universal Domain as the silent wing; and as the wing of silence and dynamism together, all the Rajasâ"the Raja of Invincible America (Dr John Hagelin), the Raja of Invincible China (Dr Steven Rubin), the Raja of Invincible India (Dr Harris Kaplan), and the 24 other Rajas responsible for all the nations of the world; and the Prime Minister and the 12 Ministers of the Global Country of World Peace. All together this group, comprising the 48 most enlightened leaders of our world family, will be the Global Council of the Brahmanand Saraswati Trust. 'Again, not only now but always in every generation, this will be the structure: Shankaracharya-ji as Patron, Maharaja as President, and all the Purusha Rajas and the Rajas and Ministers together as the Global Council. This will be the invincible structure of enlightened leadership throughout all time to ensure that the Vedic Pandits are fully supported, in order to make the whole world globally invincible and enjoying the eternal administration of the field of infinite silence which is the administrator of the galactic universe. There will also be an Executive Council of this body, to handle day-to-day affairs between the great meetings of the Global Council with Maharaja-ji, and that will be the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and Planning, Kuber-ji (Dr Benjamin Feldman), and the Raja of Invincible America, th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (snip) > > > Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time > > > without coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? > (snip) > > Several instructions here might be helpful... > When you have overpowering thoughts, repetitive thoughts, and it is > not possible to think the mantra comfortably, then allow your > attention to be on the 'body'... > Allow your attention to be with the sensations in the body, and with > the attention on the body will help release the unwinding of whatever > needs to be unwound, and then when it is comfortable to come back to > the mantra, then come back to the mantra. > When you are forcing the mantra against other thoughts or sensations > in the body, then this is not 'thinking the mantra as sponateously as > we think any other thought'... > > After years of meditation there ought to be some sense > of 'witnessning' in your awareness. > TM is the act of culturing the awareness of 'Self', beyond thoughts. > TM is also the practice of becoming aware of the refinement of the > mantra from gross to subtle, and then to transcendence. > > Sometimes, if there are mental issues, it might be a good idea to > invest in a CD by holosync, which uses a technology to synchronize > and slow the brain waves to alpha and slower than alpha. > > Sometimes becoming aware of the breath during TM or just feeling the > heart, bringing the energy of the mind, that produces thought after > thought, to the heart, to the solar plexus and you will find, the > mind can't maintain thinking while feeling intensely the heart or the > solar plexus. > Sometimes you will find if you feel confused, frustrated or > just 'stressed out', allowing your attention to breath into the solar > plexus and allow a ffeling of release on the outbreath like a big > sigh can help. > Release the feeling of tightness in the solar plexus to be released > in a big sigh, and listen to the natural sound of the release and you > will feel a settling of whatever is being held in the body. > Perhaps you had an argument or you are in some kind of personal bind, > this way of breathing into the 'gut' and just sigh- let out what is > the bothering emotion. > Perhaps you can practice this breathing in and sighing before TM, > If you are feeling 'tight' inside, stressed or whatever, so you could > start TM at a more neutral place, if you are holding negative > emotions in the body.. > > I hope some of these suggestions will help... > R.g. > Well, R.g., thanks for the advice. Some of it sounds TMish and some doesn't, but I'm truely not interested in holosynch technology, sorry, and the point I was making about thoughts is that given MY particular neurophysiology, I often DO get lost in thought for hours. However, I found that after such extended perids of extreme mental activity during TM practice are finished, that I am every bit as refreshed as when I don't have 2-3 hours of being lost in thoughts, and when I note that I 'm not thinking the mantra before the end of the 20 minute meditation session, I don't have any problems "going back to the mantra, so I don't believe that the intructions about negative or overhwleming thoughts apply in this case. My nervous system just gets triggered to produce long trains of thoughts during the outward stroke, sometimes. Given my medical history, this may not be surprising. At the time of the intervention by my family to get me out of the mold invested apartment, I was unable to count to 10 mentally without getting lost. Echos/memories of that extreme period in my life may be triggered by the meditaiton process as part of the repair activity, according to TM theory. Its as good an explanation as any, to me. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > What strikes me about your posts is that you again and again reffer > > to your "TB" friends which leads to this thought; why on earth would > > a "TB" have you as a friend ? > > Nab, sounds like you live in pretty black and white world. And it's > good to know that with few exceptions you feel no affintiy for anyone > here. Either your 100% in or 100% out, is what I hear you saying. Good Point... Someone told me that I had the habit of thinking in total terms either black or white... And, that it would be good for me to accept the 'grey areas' of life's experience sometimes... Sometimes things just aren't black or white...but grey is sometimes OK>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
(snip) > > Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time > > without coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? (snip) Several instructions here might be helpful... When you have overpowering thoughts, repetitive thoughts, and it is not possible to think the mantra comfortably, then allow your attention to be on the 'body'... Allow your attention to be with the sensations in the body, and with the attention on the body will help release the unwinding of whatever needs to be unwound, and then when it is comfortable to come back to the mantra, then come back to the mantra. When you are forcing the mantra against other thoughts or sensations in the body, then this is not 'thinking the mantra as sponateously as we think any other thought'... After years of meditation there ought to be some sense of 'witnessning' in your awareness. TM is the act of culturing the awareness of 'Self', beyond thoughts. TM is also the practice of becoming aware of the refinement of the mantra from gross to subtle, and then to transcendence. Sometimes, if there are mental issues, it might be a good idea to invest in a CD by holosync, which uses a technology to synchronize and slow the brain waves to alpha and slower than alpha. Sometimes becoming aware of the breath during TM or just feeling the heart, bringing the energy of the mind, that produces thought after thought, to the heart, to the solar plexus and you will find, the mind can't maintain thinking while feeling intensely the heart or the solar plexus. Sometimes you will find if you feel confused, frustrated or just 'stressed out', allowing your attention to breath into the solar plexus and allow a ffeling of release on the outbreath like a big sigh can help. Release the feeling of tightness in the solar plexus to be released in a big sigh, and listen to the natural sound of the release and you will feel a settling of whatever is being held in the body. Perhaps you had an argument or you are in some kind of personal bind, this way of breathing into the 'gut' and just sigh- let out what is the bothering emotion. Perhaps you can practice this breathing in and sighing before TM, If you are feeling 'tight' inside, stressed or whatever, so you could start TM at a more neutral place, if you are holding negative emotions in the body.. I hope some of these suggestions will help... R.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: Anti-Science Non-meditators Must be Stopped
"dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Come to meditation, it is the only way. Sub Jesus. Sub Yahweh. Sub Allah. Sub Buddah. And then get violent when others don't come along.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Don't ever think you are fallen, just get on your feet and keep > running." > > - Maharishi, Boppard 1982 Good quote Nab. Nab, here is how I view spiritual growth. I was "into" ceramics in high school. (never was very good), but one thing I always noticed was when you were kneading the clay, it was great when you achieved that consistency where the clay was very pliable, and could be molded into a graceful shape on the wheel. But sometimes there would be a piece of hardened clay or other impurity that would break through when you were doing the kneading. That hard piece, or impurity if not removed could wreck the piece once it go on the wheel, or leave a blemish, or even cause the piece to blow up in the kiln. At the risk of sounding preachy, you sometimes across to me as that piece of clay where a hardened piece keeps breaking the surface. Evidenced especially by your mean spirited comment to Ruth about her friends.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: Anti-Science Non-meditators Must be Stopped
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FW: > > A Proclamation, for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition > "Just take what you love doing, and do it with enough other people to make it the future." -- Carl Pope, Founder of Sierra Club > > Jai Guru Dev, > > -Global Committee for Safety and Purity of the Teaching, > Vigilantes for the Age of Enlightenment >
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" willytex@ wrote: > > > > > > The war is over and Vasudevananda lost.. > > > > > > Curtis wrote: > > > It works on so many levels. > > > > > "I don't know who is responding to my comments > > but they clearly have too much of a personal > > stake in this issue to see the facts clearly. > > First, it's important for Americans to > > understand that the Shankaracaryas in general > > have very little money or power. They are > > trucked out at religious fairs and on religious > > holidays to give a blessing or two and that's > > about it. These days the Shankaracarya of > > Puri is so poor he can barely keep his > > vidyapith open and all vidyapiths (the > > Sringeri pith is the exception that proves > > this rule) are in terrible disrepair." > > > > Read more: > > > > The cook did it! > > http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/shantanand3.htm > > > > > As I pointed out several times, making the Shankaracharya lineage that > MMY supported the custodian of all the land and buildings around the world > that are being/have been built under the auspices of the Swami Brahamananda > Trust makes MMY's choice for shankaracharya and his lineage the most > wealthy and powerful in all of India. > > Quite a nice way to ensure that MMY's view of things will endure in a Math, > regardless of the legal situation. And, money talks. Eventually, I would expect > there to be a reconciliation of the succession in favor of MMY's view. > > Lawson > "As I pointed out several times, making the Shankaracharya lineage that MMY supported the custodian of all the land and buildings around the world that are being/have been built under the auspices of the Swami Brahamananda Trust makes MMY's choice for shankaracharya and his lineage the most wealthy and powerful in all of India." Lawson, Can you point me to any more detail on the above quote? Does that include the peace palaces and towers etc.? Any info on the board of directors for the SBS trust? Thanks, JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The war is over and Vasudevananda lost.. > > > > Curtis wrote: > > It works on so many levels. > > > "I don't know who is responding to my comments > but they clearly have too much of a personal > stake in this issue to see the facts clearly. > First, it's important for Americans to > understand that the Shankaracaryas in general > have very little money or power. They are > trucked out at religious fairs and on religious > holidays to give a blessing or two and that's > about it. These days the Shankaracarya of > Puri is so poor he can barely keep his > vidyapith open and all vidyapiths (the > Sringeri pith is the exception that proves > this rule) are in terrible disrepair." > > Read more: > > The cook did it! > http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/shantanand3.htm > As I pointed out several times, making the Shankaracharya lineage that MMY supported the custodian of all the land and buildings around the world that are being/have been built under the auspices of the Swami Brahamananda Trust makes MMY's choice for shankaracharya and his lineage the most wealthy and powerful in all of India. Quite a nice way to ensure that MMY's view of things will endure in a Math, regardless of the legal situation. And, money talks. Eventually, I would expect there to be a reconciliation of the succession in favor of MMY's view. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
> > The war is over and Vasudevananda lost.. > > Curtis wrote: > It works on so many levels. > "I don't know who is responding to my comments but they clearly have too much of a personal stake in this issue to see the facts clearly. First, it's important for Americans to understand that the Shankaracaryas in general have very little money or power. They are trucked out at religious fairs and on religious holidays to give a blessing or two and that's about it. These days the Shankaracarya of Puri is so poor he can barely keep his vidyapith open and all vidyapiths (the Sringeri pith is the exception that proves this rule) are in terrible disrepair." Read more: The cook did it! http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/shantanand3.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
> > Its a fact that swami Vasudevanada Saraswati > > is sitting on the very seat that the > > Shankarachayra sat on, wearing the > > Shankarachayra's sandlals, and Vasudevanand > > owns all the buildings and the property that > > he inherited from the Shankaracharya. > > coldbluiceman wrote: > Perhaps it is a "fact" in your delusional mind... > The fact is that the Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati is the only succossor in the line of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. He was selected to be the Shankaracharya by the previous Shankaracharya. "Santananda passed away in late 1997, and Vasudevananda Sarasvati is currently the sole representative of this lineage." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan Source: The Jyotirmaha Sankaracarya Lineage in the 20th Century: http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/ > However that does not change REALITY. > The reality is, that according to the Swaroopanand in the Kropinsky interview, the will specified that Shantanand should be the successor to Brahmanand. And the will of Brahmanand has not been disputed in any Indian court. One thing is a fact and is not disputed: neither Swaroopanand nor Prakashanand's name appear in the will of Brahmanand Saraswati, however, Swami Shantanand Saraswati and Swami Visnudevananda Saraswati are listed as the first and third choice in the will. That is the reality.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Today's Gab Stats Yahoo Groups Post Counter = Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 5 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 12 00:00:00 2008 -- Searching... 303 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jul 7 23:18:57 2008 Member Posts "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>42 "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 28 TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>27 "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>25 "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 24 Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21 nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16 ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>14 "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>9 "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8 cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8 "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>7 "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>6 coldbluiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6 "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5 Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4 "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4 "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4 "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>4 satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3 "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "sriswamijisadhaka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "originalsexbook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2 "Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2 "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1 "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 posters: 35 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] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:58 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > >> > >>> I already said enough for some people to give their feedback. It > >>> all > >>> went over Lawson's head because it sounded like something different > >>> from what he had heard. I suspect that his relationship with > >>> meditation is more conceptual than experiential. > >> > >> > >> NO, say it isn't so! Wouldn't that mean he is isn't practicing TM > >> correctly? Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time without > >> coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? > >> > >> Gee, I wonder if Judy was listening. > >> > > > > TM is coming back to the mantra when you note you are not thinking > > the mantra... > > > > Now, I could make an EFFORT to keep the mantra around, but are you > > suggesting > > that such an effort would still be TM? > > No meditative effort necessary (that's not to say TM is effortless, > all meditations which require a technique are, > by their very nature, effortful), all that is required is smrti, > mindfulness. For example, if one is not mindful, one doesn't return to > the mantra. Eh, that sounds effortful to me. The instruction is "when you notice," not "try to make sure you notice." The theory (MMY"s original and the current neurological) is that when you have finished cycling through whatever thoughts arise due to the nervous-system-activity that resulted from the "inward stroke" of meditation, you WILL have an opportunity to recall the mantra. Trying to "speed up" that process merely distorts the process. The process involves inward strokes, a possible pause (which may merely be the same inward stroke where your ability to note activity has lessened) and an outward stroke. As long as you don't have the recollection that there is a mantra to be thought, you're still in the outward stroke phase. I mean, I usually don't decide to sit for 2-3 hours daydreaming when I could be typing on Fairfield LIfe, for example. It is the fact that the mental processes are a result of the original inward stroke that is the reason I'm neither making a decision to get up, nor making a decision to return to the mantra. Once that outer stroke is completed, I can start making decisions about what to do next. The process can be interrupted by external events of course, just as sleep can be. Conversely, if one maintains some habitual mindfulness, > one comes back. In order to engrain the habit of TM in the human > nervous system, you need that 'instant habit' or "coming back". > Eventually you just automatically 'come back' and any need for > mindfulness is superfluous like walking. > As I said above, "mindfulness" as a part of *TM* practice, only becomes POSSIBLE once the "outward stroke" phase ends. At that point, one can note that one is no longer thinking the mantra and return to it, or one can decide to stop the process (or one can answer the phone or address whatever other external event triggered your outward look at the sensory world). There's no need to be more or less mindful during TM than at any other time. Thinking the mantra really IS just like thinking any other thought. The process of thinking a thought always starts the TM process, but unless you make a decision to return to that thought, the process doesn't continue for very long. > The important thing is to train oneself to come back, without judging, > and repeat that. Eventually it is totally "sahaj", effortless and > natural. It's like a groove you just naturally fall into. It probably > has something to do with neuroplastic changes in the brain. If you can > repeat it enough, the neurons reweave to the new pattern and then it's > yours. > There indeed may be changes goin on in the brain, but your exposition doesn't seem to be that closely related to TM. TM is effortless from the start. Where entrainment MAY come in is in how the brain responds to using the same thought every time to start the meditation process. It is certainly plausible that the brain changes in ways that support the process more effectively using that thought than some arbitrary "mantra du jour," but the process itself is effortless from the start. > > Vaj, you haven't had, as far as I can tell, the neurological issues > > I have had (and > > still have). My experience fits in with the TM theory pretty well. > > what other > > theory of meditation does my experience fit with? > > ADHD? > ADHD, plus 3 years of non-stop exposure to mold, which I was alrady allergic to, and which may have had neurotoxic properties as well. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:34 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:58 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I already said enough for some people to give their feedback. It all went over Lawson's head because it sounded like something different from what he had heard. I suspect that his relationship with meditation is more conceptual than experiential. NO, say it isn't so! Wouldn't that mean he is isn't practicing TM correctly? Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time without coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? Gee, I wonder if Judy was listening. TM is coming back to the mantra when you note you are not thinking the mantra... Now, I could make an EFFORT to keep the mantra around, but are you suggesting that such an effort would still be TM? No meditative effort necessary (that's not to say TM is effortless, all meditations which require a technique are, by their very nature, effortful), all that is required is smrti, mindfulness. For example, if one is not mindful, one doesn't return to the mantra. Conversely, if one maintains some habitual mindfulness, one comes back. In order to engrain the habit of TM in the human nervous system, you need that 'instant habit' or "coming back". Eventually you just automatically 'come back' and any need for mindfulness is superfluous like walking. The important thing is to train oneself to come back, without judging, and repeat that. Eventually it is totally "sahaj", effortless and natural. It's like a groove you just naturally fall into. It probably has something to do with neuroplastic changes in the brain. If you can repeat it enough, the neurons reweave to the new pattern and then it's yours. Vaj, you haven't had, as far as I can tell, the neurological issues I have had (and still have). My experience fits in with the TM theory pretty well. what other theory of meditation does my experience fit with? ADHD?
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
of the high court order. shankaracharya swami swaroopanand saraswati > has filed a suit, seeking relief that swami vasudevanand saraswati be> restrained by the court from proclaiming himself jagat guru > shankaracharya of jyotirmath badrikashram himalaya. the additional > civil judge (second), allahabad on february 22, 1999 had passed a > temporary injunction, restraining swami vasudevanand, not to proclaim> himself as jagat guru shankaracharya of jyotishpeeth badrikashram> himalaya and work accordingly. after a temporary injunction, swami> swaroopanand saraswati has filed an application in the court of civil> judge here, seek ing relief that punitive action be taken against> swami vasudeva nand under order 39 rule 2(ka) of c.p.c., as he has> intentionally violating the court's injunction order and proclaiming> himself shankaracharya of badrikashram. This wins the award for news item that reads like a satiric piece! It works on so many levels. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coldbluiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Richard J. Williams wrote: > > > > coldbluiceman wrote: > > > SBS did not build or establish anything! > > > Its a fact that swami Vasudevanada Saraswati > > is sitting on the very seat that the > > Shankarachayra sat on, wearing the > > Shankarachayra's sandlals, and Vasudevanand > > owns all the buildings and the property that > > he inherited from the Shankaracharya. > > Perhaps it is a "fact" in your delusional mind Richard.. > However that does not change REALITY.. > I once again painfully re-cite this fact and remind you that this > injunction was upheld in appeals and is a STANDING PERMANENT > INJUNCTION AGAINST Vasudevananda (why you "tm-ers" have such a problem > with reality..I will never know).. see > > "The latest development from this angle is that on February 22, 1999, > the court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, has passed an interim order, > prohibiting Vāsudevānanda from using the title of Śaṅkarācārya to > collect any donations, till the legal case gets resolved either way. > The reasons cited for this order are that his installation is suspect, > and that Svarūpānanda has the better claim to the Jyotirmaṭha title, > both for historical reasons and by virtue of being acknowledged by the > other Śaṅkarācāryas. Thus, notwithstanding the previous legal standing > of Śāntānanda at Jyotirmaṭha, his disciple and successor seems to have > suffered a legal setback at present. > http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/ > > NOW THE STANDING RULING .. > .."allahabad: district judge jagmohan paliwal dismissed the revision > application of swami vasudevanand saraswati, and upheld the order of > february 13 passed by civil judge (junior division) west, allahabad. > the civil judge, on february 13 this year had dismissed the two > applications of swami vasudevanand saraswati, whereby he had prayed > that contempt proceedings pending against him be rejected in the light > of the high court order. shankaracharya swami swaroopanand saraswati > has filed a suit, seeking relief that swami vasudevanand saraswati be > restrained by the court from proclaiming himself jagat guru > shankaracharya of jyotirmath badrikashram himalaya. the additional > civil judge (second), allahabad on february 22, 1999 had passed a > temporary injunction, restraining swami vasudevanand, not to proclaim > himself as jagat guru shankaracharya of jyotishpeeth badrikashram > himalaya and work accordingly. after a temporary injunction, swami > swaroopanand saraswati has filed an application in the court of civil > judge here, seek ing relief that punitive action be taken against > swami vasudeva nand under order 39 rule 2(ka) of c.p.c., as he has > intentionally violating the court's injunction order and proclaiming > himself shankaracharya of badrikashram. > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444328053.cms > > > The war is over and Vasudevananda lost.. > Cry me a river..build a bridge and ..GET OVER IT!! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:58 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > I already said enough for some people to give their feedback. It all > > went over Lawson's head because it sounded like something different > > from what he had heard. I suspect that his relationship with > > meditation is more conceptual than experiential. > > > NO, say it isn't so! Wouldn't that mean he is isn't practicing TM > correctly? Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time without > coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? > > Gee, I wonder if Judy was listening. > TM is coming back to the mantra when you note you are not thinking the mantra... Now, I could make an EFFORT to keep the mantra around, but are you suggesting that such an effort would still be TM? Vaj, you haven't had, as far as I can tell, the neurological issues I have had (and still have). My experience fits in with the TM theory pretty well. what other theory of meditation does my experience fit with? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" wrote: > > > whether it's at all possible as an idea; Another point might be to > > check out whether, like fractal generation, there are any interesting > > surprises that unfold, whether "reap as you sow" actually works, at > > least for these computer creatures. > > > > Is it a completely mad and useless idea? > > > > It is neither mad or useless, its been done. Karma translates directly > as action. The concept is entirely empirical. Action can be observed. > Newton codified causality when he said for every action there is an > equal and opposite reaction. This is the law of Karma. > > The law of karma becomes murkier when applied to human behavior. Common > sense tells us there is some truth to the law of karma applied to human > behavior. For the most part a healthy person who commits murder, even > if he gets away with it, will feel the consequences of the act for years > to come. The prevailing philosophy that best illustrates this moral > natural law is utilitarianism. > > However the law of karma breaks down when psychopaths murder. Here > human behavior becomes subject to errant physical characteristics in the > brain. Karma played out in a neuro-biological sense. > > As for karma on the higher order, that is hogwash. Ben Franklin ran > into problems selling lightening rods for houses because in the day the > ignorant hicks felt that a hit house burned down to pay for sins of the > occupants, the lightening rod was an affront to god. Lightening rods > and firemen where heavily resisted by the simpletons of the time. > > It is unfortunate that there are still morons who entertain these myths > and base their life decisions and activities on cartoon fantasies from > earlier ages. > > I find it fascinating that people who take the time to meditate twice a > day would choose to subscribe to any of this mumbo jumbo. It seems to > me that simple observation, in a relaxed quiet internally focused way > would lead most people to better conclusions as to what is. All the > chatter on this NG about herbs, astrology, ethereal influences of > populations, levitation, unicorns and phantoms to me is contrary to the > results of the mind disciplined by meditation. > > Sure, there is clearly a non-material phenomenon (numonenon in Kant's > phrasing) but its expression is hardly fantastic. > > s. > Seems to me that karma explains all issues, but perhaps "bad karma" in many cases can merely be translated as "too stupid to take steps to protect yourself..." Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
> Richard J. Williams wrote: > > coldbluiceman wrote: > > SBS did not build or establish anything! > Its a fact that swami Vasudevanada Saraswati > is sitting on the very seat that the > Shankarachayra sat on, wearing the > Shankarachayra's sandlals, and Vasudevanand > owns all the buildings and the property that > he inherited from the Shankaracharya. Perhaps it is a "fact" in your delusional mind Richard.. However that does not change REALITY.. I once again painfully re-cite this fact and remind you that this injunction was upheld in appeals and is a STANDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST Vasudevananda (why you "tm-ers" have such a problem with reality..I will never know).. see "The latest development from this angle is that on February 22, 1999, the court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, has passed an interim order, prohibiting Vāsudevānanda from using the title of Śaṅkarācārya to collect any donations, till the legal case gets resolved either way. The reasons cited for this order are that his installation is suspect, and that Svarūpānanda has the better claim to the Jyotirmaṭha title, both for historical reasons and by virtue of being acknowledged by the other Śaṅkarācāryas. Thus, notwithstanding the previous legal standing of Śāntānanda at Jyotirmaṭha, his disciple and successor seems to have suffered a legal setback at present. http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/ NOW THE STANDING RULING .. .."allahabad: district judge jagmohan paliwal dismissed the revision application of swami vasudevanand saraswati, and upheld the order of february 13 passed by civil judge (junior division) west, allahabad. the civil judge, on february 13 this year had dismissed the two applications of swami vasudevanand saraswati, whereby he had prayed that contempt proceedings pending against him be rejected in the light of the high court order. shankaracharya swami swaroopanand saraswati has filed a suit, seeking relief that swami vasudevanand saraswati be restrained by the court from proclaiming himself jagat guru shankaracharya of jyotirmath badrikashram himalaya. the additional civil judge (second), allahabad on february 22, 1999 had passed a temporary injunction, restraining swami vasudevanand, not to proclaim himself as jagat guru shankaracharya of jyotishpeeth badrikashram himalaya and work accordingly. after a temporary injunction, swami swaroopanand saraswati has filed an application in the court of civil judge here, seek ing relief that punitive action be taken against swami vasudeva nand under order 39 rule 2(ka) of c.p.c., as he has intentionally violating the court's injunction order and proclaiming himself shankaracharya of badrikashram. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444328053.cms The war is over and Vasudevananda lost.. Cry me a river..build a bridge and ..GET OVER IT!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I don't strongly defend all things TM. Thee fact that you perceive > my rather > > moderate comments suggests that you have some "issues" in that regard. > > > Why the attack back? Please don't read my mind, you don't know if I > do or do not have issues. I was just asking a question about why you > tend to defend all things TM. Just curious as to why. If you are > curious why I don't defend TM and in fact criticize it, you can ask. > Sandiego asked and I answered. > In fact, I Don't tend to defend all things TM. However, certain things seem worth "defending," and more importantly, certain attacks and criticisms seem so hopelessly inaccurate that they offend my sense of right and wrong, merely by their degree of inaccuracy. Lawson Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > Similarly, different forms of meditation DO NOT "have the > same thing to say." They are as different as night and > day. For example, most of the forms I practice believe > that the effectiveness of the meditation comes from how > long one is able to spend in samadhi during each session. > The ideal is pretty much the entire meditation session, > with no more than a dozen thoughts appearing in an hour. > > Does that sound like your TM meditation, Lawson? Does it > sound like the form I am describing "has much the same > thing to say" as Maharishi did? > Doen't sound like what I call "samadhi" either. Be interesting to see if your "samadhi" has the same physological correlates as my "samadhi." For example, is your form of meditation associated with reduced thalamic activity? Not, its always possible, as Vaj says, that the TM interpretation of samadhi is wrong, or even that more than one physiological signature corresponds to the same spiritual state, but I doubt it. Which may make me closed-minded in your eyes, along with the many other negative qualities you have listed. /shrug. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" richardhughes103@ wrote: > > > > > Just as I prefer to believe that there is an ordered reality which we > > can get to know (my fairly reasonable metaphysical faith in Science I > > would say), so too I prefer to believe the world is a morally ordered > > whole. It might seem "just" a choice of mine. But I see it as a > > rational choice nevertheless. "Rational" does not mean "proved true" > > or "certain" (scientistic types notwithstanding). > > > > And just as I don't believe the orderliness of Nature was put there by > > a transcendent Judeo-Christian God, so too I prefer the idea of karma > > as a more naturalistic concept. An "immanent moral order" if you will. > > I don't see why that should be so puzzling if materialism should be > > thought false in favour of the view that the underlying "stuff" of > > nature is consciousness. Not everyone who has believed in THAT is an > > ignorant, bronze-age peasant! > > > > Finally it seems to me that you rightly have much fun at the expense > > of those who not only believe in karma but think they are privy to its > > workings too. But the two do not necessarily go together. I think in > > the Gita MMY expressed the view that karma was unfathomable? > > > > PS I'm a sucker for reincarnation too! > > > I don't think you get my argument at all. I am not arguing for > scientific method, though it has a pretty good track record with > antibiotics and electric lights and all. > > And I definitely am not arguing scientist or materialism, anyone who has > ever solved an arithmetic problem understands there is more to the world > than stuff. > > But I am arguing for healthy skepticism of anything that smacks of > magic. I am with you there. But I believe in karma, and...there is no contradiction surely. A belief in karma is as much to say "I do not ultimately believe in luck". That's all. The concept of "luck" is one of those funny things that we've grown up with all our lives without perhaps giving too much thought to. If you stare hard at it - it's a bit weird really, no? It hardly fits in with a scientific way of thinking very easily for example? A belief in karma is to think that there may be no known explanation for some event, and perhaps there never could be one that we could figure out. But we have a rational faith that there must BE some explanation all the same. "God does not play dice", whether in the material world or the human realm - that I would say is the idea. Having such a belief does not entitle you to guess magical "explanations" for why such and such happened though (which I think is the point you're making). What causes floods in Iowa? It's the weather stupid! why I am affected one way by that, and someone else in quite another way? Is that to be something magical, mysterious and inexplicable that we call "luck" (i.e. there is no explanation)? Or is it "karma" (i.e. there IS an explanation but we may have no idea what it is). I think the latter can reasonably claim to be the more rational. > The kosmos is awe-some (as in inspires awe) in so many ways it > doesn't have to be cluttered by big brained people over thinking the > obvious. So if lightening strikes a building we don't have to jump to > the conclusion its karmic revenge to offset the occupants behavior. > > Better to leave these matters to the mysteries of the unknown until we > can find better evidence than the wild musings of bronze age > illiterates. Why expose ourselves to deception and fiction especially > if the name of the game is looking for truth or at best a factoid? If > an observation in this world is unexplained, better to leave it in the > unknown column than think the matter is over by buying into folktales. > It might be consoling in the short term but pretty soon these folktales > add up and one's whole fundamental existence gets caught up in drama > (think maya here - That's pretty much is the definition of maya). Isn't > the recognition of maya a fundamental goal of yoga? > > Don't get me started on reincarnation - its already been explained to my > satisfaction by a mental process called source monitoring. > > s. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coldbluiceman wrote: > > > > > sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > > > > > > That was really entertaining! Thanks for the new info. I find it > > > > interesting that one of the biggest brags about the specialness of > > > > Guru Dev was the his seat was empty for years > > > > before he took it. Then > > > > after his death we seem to have people who are > > > > "special" enough to be > > > > the big Kahuna of the caste system supporters. > > > > > > That group had managed to name the SBS to the position > > > and wanted to > > > name someone new. > > > > Here we go..another crazy discourse from the peanut gallery! > > > > Sri Lawson is going to tell the "group managed to name SBS to the > > position".. > > > > Guess what Lawson?..the "group" was the founding pundits of Kashi that > > spearheaded the effort to RE-ESTABLISH Jyosimutt/Jyothirmath Ashram1 > > > > SBS did not build or establish anything! > > > > That IS A HISTORICAL LEGAL FACT. > > But does that give them the right to declare a NEW Shankaracharya? Sure it does..If you knew the history of the Shankaracharya Order and who oversees the order.. In the 1500's Sri Madhav Acharya organized the mathas/peeths and set up a body at Varanasi/Kashi to oversee the maths. [...]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi_cremated_in_Allaha > bad > > > /articleshow/2774934.cms > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/yscqyn > > > > Namaste Sri Lawson ..I was mistaken..you are right Vasudevananda > > attended the funeral.. > > However the "careful" omission of the title of "shankaracharya" was > > deliberate as Vasudevananda has a pending court injunction against > > him.. excluding himo of any claim tho the title at Jyothrimath.. > > > > "For purposes of gaining donations" as the link you give says. Whether or > not any newspaper would refer to him using that title obviously isn't > covered by the ruling. No Lawson as Dana Swayer pointed out at this group 2 years ago..(from FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE) .. Dana said it best-, "the battle is over and Vasudevananda lost" Read it again please "the installation is suspect"!! Its a done deal > > See link cited > > > > .."The latest development from this angle is that on February 22, > > 1999, the court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, has passed an interim > > order, prohibiting Vāsudevānanda from using the title of > Śaṅkarācārya > > to collect any donations, till the legal case gets resolved either > > way. The reasons cited for this order are that his installation is > > suspect, and that Svarūpānanda has the better claim to the Jyotirmath > > title, both for historical reasons and by virtue of being acknowledged > > by the other Śaṅkarācāryas. Thus, notwithstanding the > previous legal > > standing of Shantananda at Jyotirmath, his disciple and successor > > seems to have suffered a legal setback at present..." > > http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/ > > > > Lawson >
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > That was really entertaining! Thanks for the new info. > > > > Uh, Curtis, I gave you the URL to this material in > > a follow-up post last week. If you'd read it, it > > wouldn't be "new info." > > Fantastic challenge and I couldn't agree more. You are very right > about this point Judy. I have in fact read and forgotten the info on > this site more than once so it is not in fact new. That was a > misstatement on my part. Great save. > > To Cold Blue ice: It was not new info. But I enjoyed it anyway. > > > > > > > > > I did not know that Maharishi's choice for Shankaracharya > > > was the cook! WTF? > > > > See my caveat about ColdBlu and salt shakers in my > > previous post. > > noted > > > > > > > > > I am surprised that Maharishi's Shankaracharya didn't come > > > to his funeral. > > > > Not only did he come to it, he presided over it. > > Correction noted by Blue himself. > > > > > (See ColdBlu/salt shakers caveat.) > > > > > I worshiped Guru Dev in my believe days so it is very > > > refreshing to take another look at him from the > > > fascinating human POV. > > > > You mean this fascinating human POV? "Swami Brahmanand > > Saraswati (Brahmanand for short), a man renowned for > > his piety and vedic learning, was installed as the > > Head of the Math"? > > > > 'Cause that's the only part of what ColdBlu posted that > > had anything to do with Guru Dev while he was, you > > know, alive. > > The insight that interested me was that it appears to me that the > reason Joitir Math was vacant all those years was not due to lack of > someone as scary special as Guru Dev, but because of endless > infighting about who had the authority. After his death others were > found to be just as special miraculously enough. So the movement's > perspective on how special it was that he was installed after all > those years is highly suspect to me. I find this fascinating. Just perhaps there was a great deal of outside influence from the British from 1800 to 1940!! What a talking idiot you are Ms. Stein..You have almost zero historical knowledge of religious history of India.. And you make unfounded statements.. There are only 2 Peeths (of the 5 original) that have unbroken disciplic succession..Dwarika & Kanchi. The British nearly destroyed the peeths at Sringeri and Puri..not to mention re-wrotethe scriptures.. See my post over at a.m.t- "The Beginnings of Brahman" ( & the Brahman Thingy) and "Wrapped around the Axel of Brahman"
[FairfieldLife] Le Maison Rouge by Gary Moore?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYjEMTQRm0&feature=related
[FairfieldLife] Judy tells the truth for once (was Re: Generic flame (this means you))
TurquoiseB wrote: > As I think Curtis mentioned, one wonders how long > it has been since *either* of them got checked. > My bet is years...in Judy's case, probably decades. > How much would you be willing to wager?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The father of quantum computers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The article would have been more interesting if the article had > mentioned the possibility of building an android like Mr. Data of > Star Trek fame. > > It appears that Artificial Intelligence research has not been able to > find ways to simulate how human intelligence works. If scientists > did, would the machine qualify for having a "soul"? > > JR The question is not, does the machine have a soul? The question should be, do human's have a soul? This concept of soul is outmoded. Its a left over noun from peoples who thought the brain was an organ designed for cooling the blood. The noun has such a broad meaning it has become rhetorically useless. The word soul has different meanings to every "spiritual" group on the planet. Compare the judeo-xtian concept of soul with the Buddhist for example. And even within those religions there are arguments as to what constitutes soul. This word has been rendered philosophically dysfunctional. Instead we westerners have developed good nomenclature for mental life. We have a pretty good idea of consciousness and its relationship with the body. I suggest if you want to have a cogent discussion to avoid meaningless terms. With this in mind, revisiting the concept of a machine with a brain equal in power to the human brain - The artificial brain should be able to rise to the same level of consciousness of some humans and in some cases exceed those levels in the same way machinery is built exceeding human physical limitations, or current computers can out-calculate us. In any case, it will be human ingenuity that develops such a tool and hopefully can benefit from its invention. Such an artificial intelligence may not be burdened with the design flaws of the human brain and may turn out to be much nicer company. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" richardhughes103@ wrote: > > Just as I prefer to believe that there is an ordered reality which we > can get to know (my fairly reasonable metaphysical faith in Science I > would say), so too I prefer to believe the world is a morally ordered > whole. It might seem "just" a choice of mine. But I see it as a > rational choice nevertheless. "Rational" does not mean "proved true" > or "certain" (scientistic types notwithstanding). > > And just as I don't believe the orderliness of Nature was put there by > a transcendent Judeo-Christian God, so too I prefer the idea of karma > as a more naturalistic concept. An "immanent moral order" if you will. > I don't see why that should be so puzzling if materialism should be > thought false in favour of the view that the underlying "stuff" of > nature is consciousness. Not everyone who has believed in THAT is an > ignorant, bronze-age peasant! > > Finally it seems to me that you rightly have much fun at the expense > of those who not only believe in karma but think they are privy to its > workings too. But the two do not necessarily go together. I think in > the Gita MMY expressed the view that karma was unfathomable? > > PS I'm a sucker for reincarnation too! > I don't think you get my argument at all. I am not arguing for scientific method, though it has a pretty good track record with antibiotics and electric lights and all. And I definitely am not arguing scientist or materialism, anyone who has ever solved an arithmetic problem understands there is more to the world than stuff. But I am arguing for healthy skepticism of anything that smacks of magic. The kosmos is awe-some (as in inspires awe) in so many ways it doesn't have to be cluttered by big brained people over thinking the obvious. So if lightening strikes a building we don't have to jump to the conclusion its karmic revenge to offset the occupants behavior. Better to leave these matters to the mysteries of the unknown until we can find better evidence than the wild musings of bronze age illiterates. Why expose ourselves to deception and fiction especially if the name of the game is looking for truth or at best a factoid? If an observation in this world is unexplained, better to leave it in the unknown column than think the matter is over by buying into folktales. It might be consoling in the short term but pretty soon these folktales add up and one's whole fundamental existence gets caught up in drama (think maya here - That's pretty much is the definition of maya). Isn't the recognition of maya a fundamental goal of yoga? Don't get me started on reincarnation - its already been explained to my satisfaction by a mental process called source monitoring. s.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Judy's Priorities (was Re: Post Count)
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:53 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Judy's Priorities (was Re: Post Count) >Hasty correction to my mistyping. She's made 28 posts >in *16* hours. That's only 1.75 per hour. My bad. :-) But some of those hours were spent sleeping, eating, meditating, etc., so you should factor that in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The father of quantum computers
The article would have been more interesting if the article had mentioned the possibility of building an android like Mr. Data of Star Trek fame. It appears that Artificial Intelligence research has not been able to find ways to simulate how human intelligence works. If scientists did, would the machine qualify for having a "soul"? JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Found a fascinating interview with David Deutsch whose > ideas may change our understanding of the world. > > http://tinyurl.com/68s6ku >
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's a force we don't know about that brings good or > bad things back to us then I call it supernatural. I can't > think of a way that, often subjective, behaviour can bounce > off something and bring us back good or bad luck. Lets not > forget the universe is claimed to repay homosexuality with > violent weather by people who post on here. That's gotta > be worth an experiment. > > I think Karma at this level is anthropomorphism written > large, originally evolving as a way of explaining why life is > sometimes so crap. I see it as a convenient explanation for > people who don't know about plate tectonics or tidal surges, > these are the sorts of things we could test for. It'd be fun > and I'm sure there's an Ignobel prize in here somewhere. --- and "Stu" wrote: > It is unfortunate that there are still morons who entertain > these myths and base their life decisions and activities > on cartoon fantasies from earlier ages. I think you underestimate those folks who "believe" perhaps? (IMO you both sail perilously close to that modern hubris over Science that gets rightly denigrated as scientism). I am not saying that believers in karma are right by the way - just that they may not be as stupid or ignorant as you would like to think them to be. I believe in Karma. I am not so daft as to think that it is a scientific question. Science itself depends on metaphysics. In particular a faith in an underlying orderliness - an orderliness that we can get our heads around. It turns out that that's a bit of a puzzle really. It's a question that greatly interests the philosopher/scientist Paul Davies for example. But then it puzzled the ancient Greeks too. If you are not puzzled by it, have you understood the problem? We all have a metaphysics - even those who think they don't (usually a half thought out "scientific" materialism). In fact some parts of Science border closely on metaphysics e.g. String theory, Deutsch's parallel universes. Some would say these latter have crossed the border into la-la land. For my part I see it this way: Either all this stuff around us and the predicament we're in has a point, a meaning, or it doesn't. The idea it doesn't is widespread and of course fabulously bleak. Some people puff themselves up with this in a sort of macho way (rather akin to your explaining away karma as a comforting anthropomorphism). It's a bit like a boorish drinker - "the bleaker the better for me, eh, 'cos I can take the hard stuff!". But can you? Can you take the really hard stuff that comes with the territory if, and especially if, you're prepared to follow the thing through to the bitter end. And that's this: Why should anyone bother themselves about the most appalling atrocities and injustice if, at the end of the day there is NO kind of moral system or meaning? If we're all nothing but little bits of stuff banging about in a vacuum for no rhyme nor reason, why should the fact that bad shit happens matter at all? For that matter, why not seize the moment and enjoy your gnat's spark of existence by doing as much wickedness as you like (if you would enjoy it)? Just as I prefer to believe that there is an ordered reality which we can get to know (my fairly reasonable metaphysical faith in Science I would say), so too I prefer to believe the world is a morally ordered whole. It might seem "just" a choice of mine. But I see it as a rational choice nevertheless. "Rational" does not mean "proved true" or "certain" (scientistic types notwithstanding). And just as I don't believe the orderliness of Nature was put there by a transcendent Judeo-Christian God, so too I prefer the idea of karma as a more naturalistic concept. An "immanent moral order" if you will. I don't see why that should be so puzzling if materialism should be thought false in favour of the view that the underlying "stuff" of nature is consciousness. Not everyone who has believed in THAT is an ignorant, bronze-age peasant! Finally it seems to me that you rightly have much fun at the expense of those who not only believe in karma but think they are privy to its workings too. But the two do not necessarily go together. I think in the Gita MMY expressed the view that karma was unfathomable? PS I'm a sucker for reincarnation too!
[FairfieldLife] Judy's Priorities (was Re: Post Count)
Hasty correction to my mistyping. She's made 28 posts in *16* hours. That's only 1.75 per hour. My bad. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > wrote: > > > > > > So where is she? > > > > Took a long weekend out of town. Now I'm behind on my > > work, so I'll be posting lightly for the next few days. > > Judy has now made 28 posts in 14 hours. That's two an > hour. > > Kinda makes you wonder about this professional editor's > definition of posting "lightly" is, doesn't it? > > Come to think of it, it also says a lot about Judy's > sense of *priorities* in life, doesn't it? She starts > the day by saying that she's "behind on her work," and > then makes 28 posts to Fairfield Life instead of working. > > H. Given today's admission that she doesn't even > need to read an author's book to decide that he's a > bigot and intentionally trying to mislead his readers, > and now her demonstration that posting to FFL is more > important than catching up on her work, would YOU > hire her as an editor? >
[FairfieldLife] Judy's Priorities (was Re: Post Count)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > wrote: > > > > So where is she? > > Took a long weekend out of town. Now I'm behind on my > work, so I'll be posting lightly for the next few days. Judy has now made 28 posts in 14 hours. That's two an hour. Kinda makes you wonder about this professional editor's definition of posting "lightly" is, doesn't it? Come to think of it, it also says a lot about Judy's sense of *priorities* in life, doesn't it? She starts the day by saying that she's "behind on her work," and then makes 28 posts to Fairfield Life instead of working. H. Given today's admission that she doesn't even need to read an author's book to decide that he's a bigot and intentionally trying to mislead his readers, and now her demonstration that posting to FFL is more important than catching up on her work, would YOU hire her as an editor?
[FairfieldLife] Sri Ganapati Sachchidananda Swamiji's limited public programs in USA
Jaya Guru Deva Datta For those who expressed interest: Sri Ganapati Sachchidananda Swamiji's limited public programs in Chicago area, New York/New Jersey and Baton Rouge are listed below. (In Jackson, MS. the Hindu Temple Society of Mississippi's new temple is scheduled for Maha Kumbhabhishekam ceremonies August 2-7. Swamiji will be conducting these observances.) 173, Vernon Jones Rd, Brandon, MS, 39047 Chicago area: Sunday Morning July 13th 10:00am HINDU MANDIR OF LAKE COUNTY 20444 W.Peterson Road, Grayslake, IL 60030 (847-223-8590) New York City/New Jersey: GURU PURNIMA Celebrations JULY 17, 2008 THURSDAY 6 PM - SRI CHAKRA PUJA,DISCOURSE & BHAJANS - ROYAL ALBERT'S PALACE , Fords, New Jersey JULY 18, 2008 FRIDAY - GURU PURNIMA - ROYAL ALBERT'S PALACE , Fords, New Jersey JULY 19, 2008 SATURDAY 6:30 PM - CELESTIAL MESSAGE 2008 MUSIC CONCERT - LINCOLN CENTER, NEW YORK CITY JULY 20, 2008 SUNDAY 10 AM - SRI CHAKRA PUJA & DISCOURSE STATE THEATRE, NEW BRUNSWICK , NEW JERSEY http://www.yogasangeeta.org/GuruPoornima2008.html Datta Temple and Hall of Trinity 6221 Equity Drive Baton Rouge, LA July 28-31. Details to be announced. http://www.dattatemple.com/ Sri Guru Datta See ya in NJ/NYC Hanuman
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time > without coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? Yup, as long as the thoughts in which one is wandering don't include the the thought that one is off the mantra (or the thought, "How long have I been meditating? Let me check my watch...Oops! Time to stop.").
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:34 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:29 PM, authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > >>> > It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by > experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that > it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly > >>> > >>> Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. > >>> > >>> Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* > >>> example? > >> > >> Yeah I've heard it several times and no I don't keep records > >> of quotes. Can't even search the database to find the most > >> recent one, sorry. I'd guess it was rose-colored and you > >> probably were wearing your rose-colored glasses that day. > > > > Translation: Vaj made it up. > > There you go with your dishonesty and lies again. > > I'm sure you're well aware teachers here have called > Lawson on his TM issues and wrong views. Nope. As I said, I suspect you're making it up. > >>> (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his > >>> practice doesn't count. He knows that.) > >> > >> Well duh. Methinks you missed the point Judy. Other people > >> who are subjected to his TM TB standup routine might find it > >> helpful to know that he doesn't 'practice what he preaches'. > >> Kinda lowers the credibility factor doncha think? > > > > And how do we know he doesn't practice regularly, Vaj? > > Uh, he's told us. Again, playing dumb Judy? > > Nice try, we're on to your dishonest tricks. Vaj provides the response that gives the lie to his claim about Lawson's credibility being lowered because he purportedly hasn't told us he isn't practicing regularly, then accuses *me* of being dishonest. Let's look at what I said again, putting back what Vaj dishonestly snipped: > > And how do we know he doesn't practice regularly, Vaj? > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:58 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I already said enough for some people to give their feedback. It all went over Lawson's head because it sounded like something different from what he had heard. I suspect that his relationship with meditation is more conceptual than experiential. NO, say it isn't so! Wouldn't that mean he is isn't practicing TM correctly? Surely wandering in thoughts for hours at a time without coming back to the mantra is still TM, right? Gee, I wonder if Judy was listening.
[FairfieldLife] Judy tells the truth for once (was Re: Generic flame (this means you))
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by > > > experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that > > > it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly > > > > Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. > > > > Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* > > example? > > > > (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his > > practice doesn't count. He knows that.) > > P.S.: I'm an experienced and "orthodox" meditator, > and Lawson's discussions of the mechanics of practice > are as accurate as any I've ever seen, more accurate > even than some former teachers. I'm really interested > to see these posts that "pointed out" he isn't > practicing correctly, because if he isn't, I'm not > either. Here's a thought -- what if Judy is completely correct above? What if *both* she and Lawson are practicing TM incorrectly? What if that explains their similar rigid belief systems and behavior? You have to admit, it's worth pondering. Plus, I'm sure that quite a few pro-TMers would be relieved to find that Judy and Lawson do NOT represent TM in any way. :-) As I think Curtis mentioned, one wonders how long it has been since *either* of them got checked. My bet is years...in Judy's case, probably decades.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:34 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:29 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* example? Yeah I've heard it several times and no I don't keep records of quotes. Can't even search the database to find the most recent one, sorry. I'd guess it was rose-colored and you probably were wearing your rose-colored glasses that day. Translation: Vaj made it up. There you go with your dishonesty and lies again. I'm sure you're well aware teachers here have called Lawson on his TM issues and wrong views. (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his practice doesn't count. He knows that.) Well duh. Methinks you missed the point Judy. Other people who are subjected to his TM TB standup routine might find it helpful to know that he doesn't 'practice what he preaches'. Kinda lowers the credibility factor doncha think? And how do we know he doesn't practice regularly, Vaj? Uh, he's told us. Again, playing dumb Judy? Nice try, we're on to your dishonest tricks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
> > > If you remembered it well enough to claim it meant > > > Lawson was wrong, you ought to be willing to spill > > > what it was. "Not interested" doesn't compute, Curtis. > > > "You're wrong and I know why but I'm not going to tell > > > you"? > > > > I remember it enough to use in my practice of TM. Challenging my > > reasons for not wanting to argue about it with you verifies my > > assumption about what you are up to here. > > Bullcrap. If there's something that would be helpful > to me to know, obviously I'd like to know it. I seriously doubt that you are going to use my meditation advise in your practice Judy! > > > > Whatever I say will be challenged from the perspective of > > someone who didn't get the instruction. You will use all > > your best experience and understanding to try to make it > > look like I am either lying about the instruction or wrong > > about it. You already revealed your own bias. > > Well, that's quite an assumption, isn't it? Where did > I "reveal my own bias," pray tell? Oh I know, at the end of the post: What exactly did it add to the > discussion except that you got to one-up Lawson and me > by claiming you know something that we don't? None of your explanations involve me being sincere about it. Funny thing that I would consider you biased. I think you have another agenda to defend Lawson at all costs even when he was acting ungraciously. Your attempt to paint his exchange as setting up a "dialog" by insults and condescension reveals a lot about how far you will go to defend him. > > > > What you *could* prove is that you had something in > > > mind. But you aren't willing even to do that. > > > > When Maharishi was developing his sunyama technique on the > > first 6 month courses, he spent some time on basic TM. > > After the siddhis came out all the attention went to them. > > Not sure what that has to do with what I said. It answered your question about proving that I had "something in mind." I gave you the church but not the pew. > > > > I mentioned it to Lawson because he > > > > was running the party line on me as if that might be news > > > > to me. > > > > > > Or to say, "This is what I was told. Why are you saying > > > it's irrelevant to your experience?" He was setting up > > > a basis for discussion. > > > > Puuleeze! Come on Judy. > > No, Curtis, *you* come on. What I just described is a > very common way of setting up the basis for discussion. No, that is not what Lawson was doing. He was shutting the conversation down with his incomplete understanding. He is not opened to my perspective on Maharishi's teaching and I suspect neither are you. That may even be a good thing for you guys since I am not a representative of his teaching anymore. > > > > > > Just like Lawson did, people in the centers were supposed to > > > > parrot the same phrases over and over no matter what the > > > > question. In the setting on rounding courses at MIU we could > > > > discuss meditation assuming a baseline of understanding. > > > > > > Right. But both Lawson and I have been on rounding > > > courses, including at MIU. We've been meditating for > > > many years, so we have a pretty good baseline of > > > understanding. > > > > So sounds like you guys are all set with what you learned. > > Except you've just said we weren't, that we've been > missing something, that we didn't "get the memo." Yes I believe that is the case. It may not matter since you practice the siddhis though. This instruction was made as Maharishi was developing the siddhis. > > My point is that we ought to be capable of grasping > the refinement you mentioned, if you were willing to > say what it was. I already said enough for some people to give their feedback. It all went over Lawson's head because it sounded like something different from what he had heard. I suspect that his relationship with meditation is more conceptual than experiential. > > > > > Sometimes that happens here. > > > > But not when the "gotcha" game is the priority. > > > > > > Oh, bull, Curtis. It's a dialectic, not a "gotcha" > > > game. Or should be. Claiming you know something we > > > don't and then refusing to say what it is is the > > > "gotcha" game. There is nothing wrong with me claiming to know something that you guys obviously don't know without any need for me to prove it to you. As I said before, I don't care. If you and Lawson don't realize that there is all sorts of stuff you guys didn't learn because you didn't take the courses, then that seems a bit odd to me. You chose not to become a teacher or even to check a bunch of people's meditations. That choice defines your knowledge base of his teachings. Likewise there are plenty of people who took courses I was not on or had more access to Maharishi personally who know things about his teaching that I will never know. The guy who knew it all is dead now. I made my point to Lawson that he doesn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > whether it's at all possible as an idea; Another point might be to > check out whether, like fractal generation, there are any interesting > surprises that unfold, whether "reap as you sow" actually works, at > least for these computer creatures. > > Is it a completely mad and useless idea? > It is neither mad or useless, its been done. Karma translates directly as action. The concept is entirely empirical. Action can be observed. Newton codified causality when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the law of Karma. The law of karma becomes murkier when applied to human behavior. Common sense tells us there is some truth to the law of karma applied to human behavior. For the most part a healthy person who commits murder, even if he gets away with it, will feel the consequences of the act for years to come. The prevailing philosophy that best illustrates this moral natural law is utilitarianism. However the law of karma breaks down when psychopaths murder. Here human behavior becomes subject to errant physical characteristics in the brain. Karma played out in a neuro-biological sense. As for karma on the higher order, that is hogwash. Ben Franklin ran into problems selling lightening rods for houses because in the day the ignorant hicks felt that a hit house burned down to pay for sins of the occupants, the lightening rod was an affront to god. Lightening rods and firemen where heavily resisted by the simpletons of the time. It is unfortunate that there are still morons who entertain these myths and base their life decisions and activities on cartoon fantasies from earlier ages. I find it fascinating that people who take the time to meditate twice a day would choose to subscribe to any of this mumbo jumbo. It seems to me that simple observation, in a relaxed quiet internally focused way would lead most people to better conclusions as to what is. All the chatter on this NG about herbs, astrology, ethereal influences of populations, levitation, unicorns and phantoms to me is contrary to the results of the mind disciplined by meditation. Sure, there is clearly a non-material phenomenon (numonenon in Kant's phrasing) but its expression is hardly fantastic. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:29 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > >> It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by > >> experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that > >> it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly > > > > Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. > > > > Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* > > example? > > Yeah I've heard it several times and no I don't keep records > of quotes. Can't even search the database to find the most > recent one, sorry. I'd guess it was rose-colored and you > probably were wearing your rose-colored glasses that day. Translation: Vaj made it up. > > (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his > > practice doesn't count. He knows that.) > > Well duh. Methinks you missed the point Judy. Other people > who are subjected to his TM TB standup routine might find it > helpful to know that he doesn't 'practice what he preaches'. > Kinda lowers the credibility factor doncha think? And how do we know he doesn't practice regularly, Vaj?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In the following post, and in no post in this thread > or to this forum, did I ever suggest that I wanted > to "ban Judy saying it was offensive." Right. Barry claimed I wanted to ban Dick from saying what I thought was offensive, that I had insisted Dick apologize, that I sounded like a book-burner, that I had a Nazi mentality, was a fanatic, etc., etc., etc., and wondered why I "felt the need" to comment on any of it. And he hasn't acknowledged that any of his false accusations needed correction. > Judy made that up -- the *same* thing that she is > accusing me of doing throughout the post. As she > herself says: > > "The real sign of fanaticism is making up stuff and > putting it in other people's mouths..." > > By her OWN definition, Judy has just demonstrated > that she is a fanatic. Once in a while to make a point doesn't count. You do it *constantly*, as you did throughout your previous post. > I don't want to "ban" you from saying stupid and > fanatical things here, Judy. I purposefully *taunt* > you into saying stupid and fanatical things here. And you're so successful in "taunting" me to say stupid and fanatical things here that you have to *invent stuff out of whole cloth* to make me sound stupid and fanatical, and then totally freak out when I call you on it. You're doing a terrific job, Barry. It's just not the job you think you're doing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The father of quantum computers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Found a fascinating interview with David Deutsch whose > ideas may change our understanding of the world. > > http://tinyurl.com/68s6ku Indeed, fascinating. And synchronistically, I read the interview just after watching the first episode of "Charlie Jade," the TV series that Bhairitu recommended the other day. It's about a private detective who flips between three parallel universes. And, as Bhairitu suggested, I now understand why the series didn't fly on American TV. It's smart, and Americans aren't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
> > A jumping to 10-12th effects already!? Does that imply you are > > reasonaably satisfied that the 1-9th order effects are valid? If > not, > > you seem dangerously close to strawman territory. > > As I say, they are the only effects I'm interested in. I can't > see the point of proving that if I throw a brick at someone they > will be pissed off. It's blatantly obvious. Less obvious is that > people being "bad" affect the weather or tectonic activity. The > theory to test is this one because it has few alternative > explanations other than Shit Happens. Which is where I'm putting > my money, so someone independent had better set the ball rolling. > Rich, I am mostly in agreement with you. However the argument falls apart when you invite an "independent" individual into the fray. The heart of this thesis is to simulate karma to understand its workings. The experiment requires dispassionate reason to take data and analyze the evidence. Why leave questions like this to those who subscribe to bronze age folktales? By definition these children have supplanted reason for fantasy. Hardly the sorts we want mucking around in a lab. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If someone says "Why is everyone an idiot but me?" > is that implying a superior attitude, or not? Not when the very next line begins, "Seriously, guys..."
[FairfieldLife] The father of quantum computers
Found a fascinating interview with David Deutsch whose ideas may change our understanding of the world. http://tinyurl.com/68s6ku
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:29 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* example? Yeah I've heard it several times and no I don't keep records of quotes. Can't even search the database to find the most recent one, sorry. I'd guess it was rose-colored and you probably were wearing your rose-colored glasses that day. I also think it's pretty obvious that his practice of TM is "off". He should get checked. (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his practice doesn't count. He knows that.) Well duh. Methinks you missed the point Judy. Other people who are subjected to his TM TB standup routine might find it helpful to know that he doesn't 'practice what he preaches'. Kinda lowers the credibility factor doncha think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
In the following post, and in no post in this thread or to this forum, did I ever suggest that I wanted to "ban Judy saying it was offensive." Judy made that up -- the *same* thing that she is accusing me of doing throughout the post. As she herself says: "The real sign of fanaticism is making up stuff and putting it in other people's mouths..." By her OWN definition, Judy has just demonstrated that she is a fanatic. I don't want to "ban" you from saying stupid and fanatical things here, Judy. I purposefully *taunt* you into saying stupid and fanatical things here. Haven't you figured that out yet? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit > > > > > of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was > > > > > intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to > > > > > mislead his readers. > > > > > > > > She says, STILL without having read the book. > > > > > > Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to > > > the book as a whole. > > > > > > Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was > > > mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta > > > system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. > > > > Of course he doesn't. No such "acknowledgement" > > is necessary. > > OK, so then I can assume that paragraph represents > his thinking, that he didn't change his mind. That's > what I was asking about, you see, whether the book > as a whole said something different. If it did, then > I *would* have to read the book to evaluate that > paragraph. > > > He did NOT "slam the Vedanta system." > > Perhaps inadvertently. But you took it and ran > with it. > > > > Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want > > about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or > > do you feel differently? > > Actually, I should ask whether *you* feel differently, > since you seem not to want me to have the right to > call a perspective bigoted. > > You seem to. You want a > > dead man to apologize for something that offered no > > offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) > > Nope, wasn't asking for an apology. More hallucination > from Barry. > > > > > Does anyone here remember Judy's "Apocalypto" meltdown? :-) > > > I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH > > about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout > > "honesty" and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you > > have no earthly idea what "Apocalypto" was about, or > > how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. > > Well, yes, Barry, I do, on the basis of reading a whole > lot of reviews describing what went on in the film and > how Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Since > they were all very largely in agreement on these points, > I think it's unlikely they were all lying or all > hallucinating a totally different film than the one > Gibson made. > > > > > > And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused > > > > PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead > > > > his readers. > > > > > > In that paragraph, yes. > > > > Please explain to us what he was "trying to mislead > > his readers" ABOUT. > > About the fact that a person not being able to tell > where he or she leaves off and the Godhead begins > doesn't necessarily mean "confusion" between worshipper > and worshipped, and that this doesn't necessarily > represent a psychotically expanded ego, i.e., that it > can be the desired end result of a lifetime of > spiritual dedication and expansion of consciousness > according to a specific metaphysical system. > > And in any case, as you assert, agreeing with me, > that description *didn't apply to the Nazis anyway*. > > So it appears that he was slamming the very idea of > realization of the union between the human being and > God in what amounted to a non sequitur in terms of > the Nazis. > > > > > Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself > > > noted that the Nazis never held. > > > > SO WHAT if he "dissed a belief system?" > > > > Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough > > to call him a bigot and claim that he was "misleading > > his readers," in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? > > > > You're sounding a lot like a "book burner" here, Judy. > > > > Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? > > Why are you hallucinating that I suggested he couldn't > say anything he damned pleases? > > And why are you suggesting I may not call him a > bigot if what pleases him appears to me to be bigotry? > > > > > Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you > > > quoted, not the book, and not because you "feel > > > positively about it" but because you tried to use >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > As I have to constantly point out to Barry, there's > > > a difference between correcting errors with regard > > > to *what* MMY said or did (or anyone else said or > > > did) and claiming that what MMY (or anyone else) said > > > or did was true or valid. Most of the time, what both > > > Lawson and I do is the former, not the latter. The > > > former is typically factual, while the latter would be > > > opinion. > > > > Why don't you follow this thread back to the beginning > > and see what got everyone pissed of in the first place. > > > > You won't find anything except patronising insults and > > Lawsons opinion being "superior" to everyone else and > > of course our "stupidities" in not knowing as much about > > meditation as he obviously does. > > I think you need to go back and reread it, Hugo. I don't > believe he ever said his *opinion* was "superior." He put > in one qualification after another when he was discussing > matters of opinion. I can't believe I'm wasting posts on this pedantry. If someone says "Why is everyone an idiot but me?" is that implying a superior attitude, or not? At least Lawson was good enough to apologise to me and Ruth for one paragraph that didn't relate to anything we'd said (which was appreciated BTW.) I leave it to everyone else to fight their own battles. As this conversation is obviously over I'm going to save my posts for the conversation about karma and quantum computers. > He did point out, on the other hand, that people weren't > getting their *facts* straight, and on that basis were > expressing opinions that were based on straw men. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > > > Is it a completely mad and useless idea? > > > > > > No! It's an absolutely brilliant idea. > > More fundamental: Turing machine exercise. Funnily enough, I edited out a huge off-topic waffle about quantum computers and an experiment being designed to run a virtual reality programme of an an individual atom to finally see for sure what is happening at the point of uncertainty principle. Wish I'd left it in now it's fascinating. I thought we could use the computer after the chaps at Oxford have finished with it to do our Karma experiment. Mind you they do have to build the thing first, some sceptics are saying it's impossible, I think it's the most brilliant idea I've ever heard. > >There are two > > things you could demonstrate. First is that the world > > appears to function perfectly well without any supernatural > > interference. Which is where I'd put my money. > > STAWMAN, STRAWMAN ALERT! Karma does not necessitate a supernatural > force any more than a ball bouncing off a wall does. If it's a force we don't know about that brings good or bad things back to us then I call it supernatural. I can't think of a way that, often subjective, behaviour can bounce off something and bring us back good or bad luck. Lets not forget the universe is claimed to repay homosexuality with violent weather by people who post on here. That's gotta be worth an experiment. I think Karma at this level is anthropomorphism written large, originally evolving as a way of explaining why life is sometimes so crap. I see it as a convenient explanation for people who don't know about plate tectonics or tidal surges, these are the sorts of things we could test for. It'd be fun and I'm sure there's an Ignobel prize in here somewhere. > > > Second is that no computer system can predict human > > or natural/meteorological behaviour without adding > > some sort of divine retribution for misdeeds. Of course > > you might just be proving that it's impossible to > > accurately predict from such large starting points > > but if there is something to it a pattern should emerge > > and with such fundamental forces at work it should be > > quite a strong signal! > > One needs to segment the problem, and not try to tackle the largest an > hardest -- an upon failing, proclaim all is false and dark. Briefly. > there are many orders to the problem. Agreed, but all the stuff below doesn't come under Karma to me, I know it technically IS but it's the mysterious large scale stuff that I'm interested in as unambigously proving it exists would overhaul how we see the world as functioning. > First order problem: aka instant karma -- do people generally smile > when you smileat them. Do they throw bricks when you throw bricks at > them? I have proved that one to my satisfaction. You? I will try later and get back to you. > 2nd order: Same individual action on individual effects, over a > lifetime. Does your 1st grade nemisis still hold tha grudge an is > going to see you fall becasue you pushed him off the jungle gyms at > age 5? A bit more shaky evidence, but seems quite plausible to me > given the evidence. Yes people can hold grudges for this long but I'd call it simple memory of, and anger at, injustice. Revenge is possible but doesn't come under my personal heading of karma. > 3rd order: individual action on individual effects over (a > hypothesized) multiple. > > 4th-6 order. Same time frames. but individual action on collective > effects. 4th order: The world hates america due to Bush. Seems plausible. Very plausible, one could say it's already been tested. > 7th-9 order. Same time frames. but collective action on individual > effects. > > 10th-12 order. Same time frames. but collective action on collective > effects. > > And is appropriate to look for discrete point effects -- or a > distribution -- providing a probability of an event occuring at a > given time or place? Most of quantum physics are probability > distrubtiions. Should the same framework, a probability distribution > of effects, be tested? And thus the theory not thrown out in the > garbage due to lack of 100% prediction of point effects? > > > Should be easy to do too, the trouble with karma is > > that it's always only retroactively applied when > > something goes wrong. > > Hardly. Oh yeah? Or do you just mean people say it about good things? I see that, I meant that it seems to be only retroactive to me, as in earthquake msut be some bad karma. > > Like the recent floods in Iowa > > were put down by some to there being too many gays and > > fornicators living in the next town. What you have to do > > is show that such weather is impossible without "immoral" > > human behaviour occuring nearby. > > Why do moral an immoral enter into it. Effects are effects. Causes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by > > experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that > > it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly > > Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. > > Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* > example? > > (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his > practice doesn't count. He knows that.) P.S.: I'm an experienced and "orthodox" meditator, and Lawson's discussions of the mechanics of practice are as accurate as any I've ever seen, more accurate even than some former teachers. I'm really interested to see these posts that "pointed out" he isn't practicing correctly, because if he isn't, I'm not either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by > experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that > it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly Funny, I've never seen anyone say that about Lawson. Could you quote some examples, please? Maybe just *one* example? (Hint: pointing out that he isn't regular in his practice doesn't count. He knows that.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > As I have to constantly point out to Barry, there's > > a difference between correcting errors with regard > > to *what* MMY said or did (or anyone else said or > > did) and claiming that what MMY (or anyone else) said > > or did was true or valid. Most of the time, what both > > Lawson and I do is the former, not the latter. The > > former is typically factual, while the latter would be > > opinion. > > Why don't you follow this thread back to the beginning > and see what got everyone pissed of in the first place. > > You won't find anything except patronising insults and > Lawsons opinion being "superior" to everyone else and > of course our "stupidities" in not knowing as much about > meditation as he obviously does. I think you need to go back and reread it, Hugo. I don't believe he ever said his *opinion* was "superior." He put in one qualification after another when he was discussing matters of opinion. He did point out, on the other hand, that people weren't getting their *facts* straight, and on that basis were expressing opinions that were based on straw men.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Hugo wrote: Why don't you follow this thread back to the beginning and see what got everyone pissed of in the first place. You won't find anything except patronising insults and Lawsons opinion being "superior" to everyone else and of course our "stupidities" in not knowing as much about meditation as he obviously does. It's been pointed out here several times to Lawson, by experienced and orthodox TM meditators and teachers, that it doesn't sound like he practices TM correctly, so I would hardly consider him an authority on TM. What he calls TM, I'd call "distraction", which is of course an opposite of meditation. I also wouldn't take him too seriously because whatever he's doing, it seems to cause so many side effects that he has to stop using it. It's not really clear if he is even currently practicing TM and the TMSP. Of course in such a case it's helpful to still believe in old theories like "unstressing". Yeah that's the ticket. I'm just evolving sooo fast, my nervous system can't handle the fastness of the boat. That seems to be the typical cop out of such TB mindsets. It seems rather hypocritical to stump for TM/TMSP, etc. when you aren't even able to practice it regularly yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit > > > > of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was > > > > intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to > > > > mislead his readers. > > > > > > She says, STILL without having read the book. > > > > Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to > > the book as a whole. > > > > Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was > > mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta > > system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. > > Of course he doesn't. No such "acknowledgement" > is necessary. OK, so then I can assume that paragraph represents his thinking, that he didn't change his mind. That's what I was asking about, you see, whether the book as a whole said something different. If it did, then I *would* have to read the book to evaluate that paragraph. > He did NOT "slam the Vedanta system." Perhaps inadvertently. But you took it and ran with it. > Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want > about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or > do you feel differently? Actually, I should ask whether *you* feel differently, since you seem not to want me to have the right to call a perspective bigoted. You seem to. You want a > dead man to apologize for something that offered no > offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) Nope, wasn't asking for an apology. More hallucination from Barry. > > > Does anyone here remember Judy's "Apocalypto" meltdown? :-) > I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH > about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout > "honesty" and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you > have no earthly idea what "Apocalypto" was about, or > how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Well, yes, Barry, I do, on the basis of reading a whole lot of reviews describing what went on in the film and how Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. Since they were all very largely in agreement on these points, I think it's unlikely they were all lying or all hallucinating a totally different film than the one Gibson made. > > > And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused > > > PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead > > > his readers. > > > > In that paragraph, yes. > > Please explain to us what he was "trying to mislead > his readers" ABOUT. About the fact that a person not being able to tell where he or she leaves off and the Godhead begins doesn't necessarily mean "confusion" between worshipper and worshipped, and that this doesn't necessarily represent a psychotically expanded ego, i.e., that it can be the desired end result of a lifetime of spiritual dedication and expansion of consciousness according to a specific metaphysical system. And in any case, as you assert, agreeing with me, that description *didn't apply to the Nazis anyway*. So it appears that he was slamming the very idea of realization of the union between the human being and God in what amounted to a non sequitur in terms of the Nazis. > > Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself > > noted that the Nazis never held. > > SO WHAT if he "dissed a belief system?" > > Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough > to call him a bigot and claim that he was "misleading > his readers," in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? > > You're sounding a lot like a "book burner" here, Judy. > > Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? Why are you hallucinating that I suggested he couldn't say anything he damned pleases? And why are you suggesting I may not call him a bigot if what pleases him appears to me to be bigotry? > > Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you > > quoted, not the book, and not because you "feel > > positively about it" but because you tried to use > > those paragraphs to bash the TMers here and compare > > them to Nazis. > > And what was wrong with that? > > Again, you are implying that there is something WRONG > with me holding an opinion that there are aspects of > the Nazi mentality in the TMO. If so, I plead guilty. > I think that much of the movement had "Nazi mentality" > stamped all over it in big letters. > > So why do you feel the need to "comment" on this? Why do you feel the need to criticize me for doing so? What's "wrong" is that it bears no relationship to reality. It's pure fantasy motivated by hatred and anger. > Am I not *allowed* to hold an opinion that you don't > agree with? Just as much as I'm allowed to say I think it represents a serious breach with reality. > You're not a critic, Judy, you're a fanatic. And with > every passing day, you're showing indications of becoming > a more and more dangerous fanatic. Today you're
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > I think you may be mistaken in how many errors you actually > > > correct as opposed to just insisting you're opinion is the > > > right one. > > > > Neither of us do that very often with regard to TM- > > related matters of opinion, actually. Lawson in > > particular falls all over himself to insert various > > disclaimers and makes it clear when he's giving his > > opinion. > > > > *Facts* are another kettle of fish. > > > > As I have to constantly point out to Barry, there's > > a difference between correcting errors with regard > > to *what* MMY said or did (or anyone else said or > > did) and claiming that what MMY (or anyone else) said > > or did was true or valid. Most of the time, what both > > Lawson and I do is the former, not the latter. The > > former is typically factual, while the latter would be > > opinion. > > > Why don't you follow this thread back to the beginning > and see what got everyone pissed of in the first place. > > You won't find anything except patronising insults and > Lawsons opinion being "superior" to everyone else and > of course our "stupidities" in not knowing as much about > meditation as he obviously does. Bad Richard. Bad, bad, bad, bad. You are suggesting that Judy actually go back and *read* the thing she is ranting about. Haven't you learned *anything* yet? :-) Judy doesn't NEED to see the movies she rants about to diss their directors and call them bigots. She doesn't NEED to read books to diss their authors and call *them* bigots, and demand that they apologize for the things they wrote. Judy just knows. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be. You are not displaying the proper respect towards Judy. The way TO display proper respect is to click your heels together, stand at attention, raise your right hand forward and above your head, palm extended, and say, "Heil Judy!" And you have to do the salute RIGHT and say the magic words RIGHT, or Judy will find something wrong with *that*, too. Even if you are half a world away, she'll know. Judy just knows.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > I think you may be mistaken in how many errors you actually > > correct as opposed to just insisting you're opinion is the > > right one. > > Neither of us do that very often with regard to TM- > related matters of opinion, actually. Lawson in > particular falls all over himself to insert various > disclaimers and makes it clear when he's giving his > opinion. > > *Facts* are another kettle of fish. > > As I have to constantly point out to Barry, there's > a difference between correcting errors with regard > to *what* MMY said or did (or anyone else said or > did) and claiming that what MMY (or anyone else) said > or did was true or valid. Most of the time, what both > Lawson and I do is the former, not the latter. The > former is typically factual, while the latter would be > opinion. Why don't you follow this thread back to the beginning and see what got everyone pissed of in the first place. You won't find anything except patronising insults and Lawsons opinion being "superior" to everyone else and of course our "stupidities" in not knowing as much about meditation as he obviously does.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you may be mistaken in how many errors you actually > correct as opposed to just insisting you're opinion is the > right one. Neither of us do that very often with regard to TM- related matters of opinion, actually. Lawson in particular falls all over himself to insert various disclaimers and makes it clear when he's giving his opinion. *Facts* are another kettle of fish. As I have to constantly point out to Barry, there's a difference between correcting errors with regard to *what* MMY said or did (or anyone else said or did) and claiming that what MMY (or anyone else) said or did was true or valid. Most of the time, what both Lawson and I do is the former, not the latter. The former is typically factual, while the latter would be opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Is it a completely mad and useless idea? > > > No! It's an absolutely brilliant idea. More fundamental: Turing machine exercise. >There are two > things you could demonstrate. First is that the world > appears to function perfectly well without any supernatural > interference. Which is where I'd put my money. STAWMAN, STRAWMAN ALERT! Karma does not necessitate a supernatural force any more than a ball bouncing off a wall does. > Second is that no computer system can predict human > or natural/meteorological behaviour without adding > some sort of divine retribution for misdeeds. Of course > you might just be proving that it's impossible to > accurately predict from such large starting points > but if there is something to it a pattern should emerge > and with such fundamental forces at work it should be > quite a strong signal! One needs to segment the problem, and not try to tackle the largest an hardest -- an upon failing, proclaim all is false and dark. Briefly. there are many orders to the problem. First order problem: aka instant karma -- do people generally smile when you smileat them. Do they throw bricks when you throw bricks at them? I have proved that one to my satisfaction. You? 2nd order: Same individual action on individual effects, over a lifetime. Does your 1st grade nemisis still hold tha grudge an is going to see you fall becasue you pushed him off the jungle gyms at age 5? A bit more shaky evidence, but seems quite plausible to me given the evidence. 3rd order: individual action on individual effects over (a hypothesized) multiple. 4th-6 order. Same time frames. but individual action on collective effects. 4th order: The world hates america due to Bush. Seems plausible. 7th-9 order. Same time frames. but collective action on individual effects. 10th-12 order. Same time frames. but collective action on collective effects. And is appropriate to look for discrete point effects -- or a distribution -- providing a probability of an event occuring at a given time or place? Most of quantum physics are probability distrubtiions. Should the same framework, a probability distribution of effects, be tested? And thus the theory not thrown out in the garbage due to lack of 100% prediction of point effects? > Should be easy to do too, the trouble with karma is > that it's always only retroactively applied when > something goes wrong. Hardly. > Like the recent floods in Iowa > were put down by some to there being too many gays and > fornicators living in the next town. What you have to do > is show that such weather is impossible without "immoral" > human behaviour occuring nearby. Why do moral an immoral enter into it. Effects are effects. Causes are causes (if demonstrated). Why is any one immoral and others moral? > There must be a way of working out a ratio of commandment- > breaks to catastrophies. It would be easy to see if, for > instance, China's invasion of Tibet caused it's recent > earthquake by seeing how many earthquakes have also affected > other countries recently and what there foriegn policies are > like. A jumping to 10-12th effects already!? Does that imply you are reasonaably satisfied that the 1-9th order effects are valid? If not, you seem dangerously close to strawman territory.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit > > > of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was > > > intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to > > > mislead his readers. > > > > She says, STILL without having read the book. > > Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to > the book as a whole. > > Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was > mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta > system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. Of course he doesn't. No such "acknowledgement" is necessary. He did NOT "slam the Vedanta system." It was not even mentioned. He merely presented a subjective point of view (only one of many) on the Nazi mentality. And even if he HAD had Vedanta in mind, no apology or "acknowledgment" would be necessary. All he did was to present an opinion. You 1) took offense where none was intended, 2) had *no earthly idea* what the book or even the quote was about *when* you took offense, and 3) still don't see that it's YOU who is not quite sane for taking offense. Anyone can believe -- and say -- anything they want about any philosophy or religion on the planet. Or do you feel differently? You seem to. You want a dead man to apologize for something that offered no offense to any sane person on the planet. :-) > > Does anyone here remember Judy's "Apocalypto" meltdown? :-) > > That would be the "meltdown" that Barry made up out > of whole cloth and reinvokes at every opportunity > as if it had really happened. It *did* happen, Judy. You called Mel Gibson a "Christian bigot" and claimed that he was guilty of bigotry over A FILM THAT YOU NEVER SAW. And now you are doing it AGAIN, over A BOOK THAT YOU HAVE NEVER READ. I keep bringing it up because it points out so MUCH about you and how you think and act, Judy. You tout "honesty" and act dishonestly. TO THIS DAY you have no earthly idea what "Apocalypto" was about, or how Mel Gibson presented his view of the Maya in it. But you will defend to your dying day your claim that he was a "Christian bigot" for making it. What a JOKE you are, Judy. THAT is why I keep bring- ing this up. And now you've given me yet ANOTHER example of doing the same thing to keep bringing up. You may rest assured that I will. :-) > > > > > read it. H...sounds as if you're "reviewing" > > > > things without reading them again. > > > > > > Uh, no. I was "reviewing" the paragraph you posted, > > > you see, and I read it several times. > > > > And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused > > PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead > > his readers. > > In that paragraph, yes. Please explain to us what he was "trying to mislead his readers" ABOUT. You seem genuinely offended by what he said. WHY? Please explain, if you can. > > > But the > > > interesting thing here is, this paragraph *contradicts* > > > the paragraph I quoted. The above has nothing to do > > > with God but with race, land, Volk, Blut, Ehre, which > > > is accurate as far as the Nazis were concerned. > > > > Did you miss, *even in the excerpt* you read, that > > this was a character's mental musings, *trying to > > figure something out*? He looks at it from many > > different points of view, *even within the quote*. > > Right. And ends up dissing a belief system you yourself > noted that the Nazis never held. SO WHAT if he "dissed a belief system?" Is THAT what you are pissed off at him about, enough to call him a bigot and claim that he was "misleading his readers," in A BOOK YOU HAVE NEVER READ? You're sounding a lot like a "book burner" here, Judy. Why can't he say anything he damned pleases? It's HIS book. At least he wrote one. You certainly never have. In fact, he wrote dozens of novels and 121 short stories, while you have written...what was it again?...diddleysquat? All you've ever done is be a schoolmarm and "correct the papers" of people who CAN write. Do you even bother to *read* the books you edit, Judy? Clearly, you don't feel the need to do so to comment on an author and his intentions. :-) > > > Judy, YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. In a compulsive, knee- > > jerk attempt to weigh in negatively against something > > I feel positively about, you are willing to make wild > > speculations and claims ABOUT A BOOK YOU HAVE > > NEVER READ. > > Mmm, no, I was commenting on the paragraphs you > quoted, not the book, and not because you "feel > positively about it" but because you tried to use > those paragraphs to bash the TMers here and compare > them to Nazis. And what was wrong with that? Again, you are implying that there is something WRONG with me holding an opinion that there are aspects of the Nazi mentality in the TMO. If so, I plead guilty. I think that much o
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So what caused the quake in England last year down near > > > > Folkestone? I bet if we were a Hindu country it would be > > > > blamed on the number of single mothers living on council > > > > estates there. Or maybe disappointmnet at Henman losing > > > > wimbledon again. > > > > > > > > > Quite telling of the British psyche perhaps -- since Henman retired > > > last year (2007) from Wimbledon. Waiting for Godot? :) > > > > > > Maybe it was his retirement that caused it eh? Final > > dashing of national hopes and pride, that must cause > > a major flux in the Karmic continuum. > > And the Brits certainly couldn't root for Murray -- being a Scot and all. Actually, we rooted for him to lose :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Do you think I should try to prove something I heard on my > > > Forest academy from a 6 month graduate around 1977-78? > > > > Did I say I thought you should try to prove it? Or did I > > ask you simply to state what it *was*? > > I could be misreading your intention in this discussion Judy. But I > think I know where this is headed. You hide your angle better than > Lawson, but the end result will be similar I think. Yeah, you're misreading my intention here. > > If you remembered it well enough to claim it meant > > Lawson was wrong, you ought to be willing to spill > > what it was. "Not interested" doesn't compute, Curtis. > > "You're wrong and I know why but I'm not going to tell > > you"? > > I remember it enough to use in my practice of TM. Challenging my > reasons for not wanting to argue about it with you verifies my > assumption about what you are up to here. Bullcrap. If there's something that would be helpful to me to know, obviously I'd like to know it. > Whatever I say will be challenged from the perspective of > someone who didn't get the instruction. You will use all > your best experience and understanding to try to make it > look like I am either lying about the instruction or wrong > about it. You already revealed your own bias. Well, that's quite an assumption, isn't it? Where did I "reveal my own bias," pray tell? > > What you *could* prove is that you had something in > > mind. But you aren't willing even to do that. > > When Maharishi was developing his sunyama technique on the > first 6 month courses, he spent some time on basic TM. > After the siddhis came out all the attention went to them. Not sure what that has to do with what I said. > > I mentioned it to Lawson because he > > > was running the party line on me as if that might be news > > > to me. > > > > Or to say, "This is what I was told. Why are you saying > > it's irrelevant to your experience?" He was setting up > > a basis for discussion. > > Puuleeze! Come on Judy. No, Curtis, *you* come on. What I just described is a very common way of setting up the basis for discussion. > > > Just like Lawson did, people in the centers were supposed to > > > parrot the same phrases over and over no matter what the > > > question. In the setting on rounding courses at MIU we could > > > discuss meditation assuming a baseline of understanding. > > > > Right. But both Lawson and I have been on rounding > > courses, including at MIU. We've been meditating for > > many years, so we have a pretty good baseline of > > understanding. > > So sounds like you guys are all set with what you learned. Except you've just said we weren't, that we've been missing something, that we didn't "get the memo." My point is that we ought to be capable of grasping the refinement you mentioned, if you were willing to say what it was. > > > Sometimes that happens here. > > > But not when the "gotcha" game is the priority. > > > > Oh, bull, Curtis. It's a dialectic, not a "gotcha" > > game. Or should be. Claiming you know something we > > don't and then refusing to say what it is is the > > "gotcha" game. > > I know all sorts of things about Maharishi's teaching that > you and Lawson never learned. The question is whether or > not I want to engage in the style of "dialectic" you are > offering. If you don't want to, don't wave an inspiration for it under our noses and then yank it back. > > If you say something that doesn't make sense to me, and > > I respond by saying what *does* make sense to me, that's > > a perfectly reasonable approach to helping you sort it > > out (or helping *me* sort out what you're saying). You > > don't further that process by claiming some secret > > knowledge that invalidates what makes sense to me as > > outdated and inapplicable. > > But the fact is it might be intended as "secret" knowledge > from you. You have respect for Maharishi's teaching methods > don't you? Perhaps this instruction like so many others was > for one place and time as an experiment. So is that the case? And if so, why didn't you say that to start with? And why are you still being cagey about it? (If it was just a one-time, one-place experiment, why is it relevant to this discussion anyway, decades later?) Or better yet, why not refrain from mentioning it in the first place? What exactly did it add to the discussion except that you got to one-up Lawson and me by claiming you know something that we don't?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > wrote: > > > > > Remember you even tried to rationalise about why my dog > > > > doesn't like amrit kalash! She's a freaking dog! Not an > > > > enemy of MMY or the movement, she doesn't give a shit about > > > > the age of enlightenment, all she wants is a walk twice a > > > > day. I have to say I was amused you'd waste a post over that, > > > > I think THAT is having an issue. > > > > > > Looks to me like an epic fail, sense-of-humor-wise, on > > > your part. > > > > I don't think so, I may not be the sharpest knife in the > > drawer but it seemed like the same ol' same ol' from where > > I was sitting. He didn't respond to my reply so I thought I > > must have read it right, unlesss he thought I was too much > > of an asshole to bother with. > > My bet's on the latter, in this case at least. > > > I would've thought it was obvious I was joking in my post > > to Sal. Hence my surprise that anyone would question whether > > the dog is somehow at fault. > > You've never heard of responding to a joke with a joke? No never, how would that even work? I'm dead serious and only occasionally sarcastic so I can't see when others are doing it. Maybe I need a humour transplant from someone more developed in that regard. > > > And why are you even answering this? I don't get it, if > > Lawson is annoyed by me taking the piss because he thought > > there's some sort of corrleation between animal taste buds > > and intelligence he can have a go, he's capable of fighting > > his corner. > > Yeah, I'm suggesting he *doesn't* think that. > > Lawson gets shat upon constantly by the TM critics > here. He has to be selective about what he responds > to among the barrage, so I was taking up a bit of > the slack with regard to a particularly ridiculous > attack, leaving him to deal with the more > substantive ones. Nice of you to pick up some of our slack. > > Confirmation bias again. How do you know how many errors > there are that we don't bother to correct? From my > perspective, there are too many to deal with anything > more than a small percentage. Sorry we put you to so much trouble. I think you may be mistaken in how many errors you actually correct as opposed to just insisting you're opinion is the right one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
> Was wondering. I didn't take 6 month courses or forest academies, > but I spent 8 weeks in-residence at MIU learning the Sidhis while rounding. > > Seems to me that if there was some "new" understanding to impart, it > would have been done at the start of the Sidhis course to make them more > effective, TM being considered the basis of the TM-SIdhis practice, > afterall... So you are thinking that your course received every instruction that every other course got? I guess you must be right Lawson, I could not have learned anything that you did not learn on your courses. You know everything ever taught on all the courses you never took. That sounds about right. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > [Lawson wrote:] > > > > If you have a "choice," than you aren't in samadhi, > > > > and the mantra still has a potential to take you > > > > closer to the samadhi state. > > > > > > No. You don't understand my experience, you are being a > > > good little parrot of stuff you heard from teachers. > > > Maharishi revamped this understanding on his 6 month courses > > > and MIU forest academies. You didn't get the memo. > > > > Don't be shy, Curtis. Tell us what the "revamped" > > understanding was, Curtis, and explain why we (Lawson > > and I, at least) never heard it from teachers. > > > > Was wondering. I didn't take 6 month courses or forest academies, > but I spent 8 weeks in-residence at MIU learning the Sidhis while rounding. > > Seems to me that if there was some "new" understanding to impart, it > would have been done at the start of the Sidhis course to make them more > effective, TM being considered the basis of the TM-SIdhis practice, > afterall... > > L >
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > > > So what caused the quake in England last year down near > > > Folkestone? I bet if we were a Hindu country it would be > > > blamed on the number of single mothers living on council > > > estates there. Or maybe disappointmnet at Henman losing > > > wimbledon again. > > > > > > Quite telling of the British psyche perhaps -- since Henman retired > > last year (2007) from Wimbledon. Waiting for Godot? :) > > > Maybe it was his retirement that caused it eh? Final > dashing of national hopes and pride, that must cause > a major flux in the Karmic continuum. And the Brits certainly couldn't root for Murray -- being a Scot and all. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > Remember you even tried to rationalise about why my dog > > > doesn't like amrit kalash! She's a freaking dog! Not an > > > enemy of MMY or the movement, she doesn't give a shit about > > > the age of enlightenment, all she wants is a walk twice a > > > day. I have to say I was amused you'd waste a post over that, > > > I think THAT is having an issue. > > > > Looks to me like an epic fail, sense-of-humor-wise, on > > your part. > > I don't think so, I may not be the sharpest knife in the > drawer but it seemed like the same ol' same ol' from where > I was sitting. He didn't respond to my reply so I thought I > must have read it right, unlesss he thought I was too much > of an asshole to bother with. My bet's on the latter, in this case at least. > I would've thought it was obvious I was joking in my post > to Sal. Hence my surprise that anyone would question whether > the dog is somehow at fault. You've never heard of responding to a joke with a joke? > And why are you even answering this? I don't get it, if > Lawson is annoyed by me taking the piss because he thought > there's some sort of corrleation between animal taste buds > and intelligence he can have a go, he's capable of fighting > his corner. Yeah, I'm suggesting he *doesn't* think that. Lawson gets shat upon constantly by the TM critics here. He has to be selective about what he responds to among the barrage, so I was taking up a bit of the slack with regard to a particularly ridiculous attack, leaving him to deal with the more substantive ones. In my observation, he has a very dry sense of humor, often self-deprecating, that folks tend to miss. I think that's what was going on here; he was, in effect, satirizing the notion that he "defends all things TM" by calling your dog's intelligence in question because she "recoiled in disgust" at MK4. > Maybe he thought I was an asshole and over-reacted, until he > speaks we won't know. But it isn't like there's no precedent > to correct all perceived errors in the pair of you. If it was > meant to be funny for Gods sake set a precedent every now and > again or we'll never know! Confirmation bias again. How do you know how many errors there are that we don't bother to correct? From my perspective, there are too many to deal with anything more than a small percentage. But sometimes it's fun to do some gentle mocking of that situation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
> > > > Do you think I should try to prove something I heard on my > > Forest academy from a 6 month graduate around 1977-78? > > Did I say I thought you should try to prove it? Or did I > ask you simply to state what it *was*? I could be misreading your intention in this discussion Judy. But I think I know where this is headed. You hide your angle better than Lawson, but the end result will be similar I think. > > If you remembered it well enough to claim it meant > Lawson was wrong, you ought to be willing to spill > what it was. "Not interested" doesn't compute, Curtis. > "You're wrong and I know why but I'm not going to tell > you"? I remember it enough to use in my practice of TM. Challenging my reasons for not wanting to argue about it with you verifies my assumption about what you are up to here. > > > You weren't there so how could I prove it? > > Even if I *was* there, there wouldn't be any way for > you to "prove" it. Don't be ridiculous. I never > suggested you should. That's a big fat red herring. Whatever I say will be challenged from the perspective of someone who didn't get the instruction. You will use all your best experience and understanding to try to make it look like I am either lying about the instruction or wrong about it. You already revealed your own bias. > > What you *could* prove is that you had something in > mind. But you aren't willing even to do that. When Maharishi was developing his sunyama technique on the first 6 month courses, he spent some time on basic TM. After the siddhis came out all the attention went to them. > > I mentioned it to Lawson because he > > was running the party line on me as if that might be news > > to me. > > Or to say, "This is what I was told. Why are you saying > it's irrelevant to your experience?" He was setting up > a basis for discussion. Puuleeze! Come on Judy. > > FWIW, it's not only what I was told, it's my experience > as well. The secret of TM instruction, in my observation, > is that most of it is DEscriptive rather than PREscriptive. > The rest of it is telling you not to mess with it. Here's > how it works: don't try to engineer it, add anything to it, > subtract anything from it. Just let it happen. I understand that. > > And yes, I witness my meditation. Doesn't make any > difference on this point as far as I can tell. By now if you weren't you should get your money back. > > > As far as why you guys never heard something, that doesn't > > surprise me at all. There are hundreds of hours of Maharishi > > discussions you haven't heard. The teaching at the centers > > was always the most conservative and cautious version of > > Maharishi's teaching. > > Uh-huh. But both Lawson and I have been on lots of > courses, including the TM-Sidhis course and subsequent > WPAs, so it wasn't just the basic teaching at the > centers. OK, that sounds right. You have more exposure to the teaching than at centers. > > > Just like Lawson did, people in the centers were supposed to > > parrot the same phrases over and over no matter what the > > question. In the setting on rounding courses at MIU we could > > discuss meditation assuming a baseline of understanding. > > Right. But both Lawson and I have been on rounding > courses, including at MIU. We've been meditating for > many years, so we have a pretty good baseline of > understanding. So sounds like you guys are all set with what you learned. > > > Sometimes that happens here. > > But not when the "gotcha" game is the priority. > > Oh, bull, Curtis. It's a dialectic, not a "gotcha" > game. Or should be. Claiming you know something we > don't and then refusing to say what it is is the > "gotcha" game. I know all sorts of things about Maharishi's teaching that you and Lawson never learned. The question is whether or not I want to engage in the style of "dialectic" you are offering. > > > I am reevaluating what parts of Maharishi's understanding > > apply to my experience now. Some people are helping me sort > > it out and some are trying to be right about something. > > Which group are you in? > > How do you expect to get help in sorting it out when you > won't say what your premises are? I gave enough in my post for people who understand. Lawson just jumped on what allowed him to "straighten me" out including his claim that I don't understand Maharishi's simplistic theory of unstressing. Your interest may be more sincere, it all depends on which Judy shows up. > > If you say something that doesn't make sense to me, and > I respond by saying what *does* make sense to me, that's > a perfectly reasonable approach to helping you sort it > out (or helping *me* sort out what you're saying). You > don't further that process by claiming some secret > knowledge that invalidates what makes sense to me as > outdated and inapplicable. But the fact is it might be intended as "secret" knowledge from you. You have respect for Maharishi's
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > So what caused the quake in England last year down near > > Folkestone? I bet if we were a Hindu country it would be > > blamed on the number of single mothers living on council > > estates there. Or maybe disappointmnet at Henman losing > > wimbledon again. > > > Quite telling of the British psyche perhaps -- since Henman retired > last year (2007) from Wimbledon. Waiting for Godot? :) Maybe it was his retirement that caused it eh? Final dashing of national hopes and pride, that must cause a major flux in the Karmic continuum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when > > I got back. After I've been away, I start with the > > most recent posts and work my way back. > > While that may be true, I think everyone here > knows WHY you replied to it, trashing me. It's > because Doug found something of value in my post, > and complimented me on it. Actually, it's because I read the post Doug quoted and found it, shall we say, seriously wanting. > > > Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* > > > she will attack, because she cannot refute his > > > facts. Mark my words. :-) > > > > Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu > > to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked > > his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? > > Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held > > accountable for anything he says. > > Here is what Judy said about coldblu, in her first > posts. You can decide whether it was an "attack" or > not. I tend to think it is...she is *explicitly* > attempting to undermine his credibility. (By the > way, I read these after writing my prediction.) > > "...it's a good idea to take anything ColdBlu says > with a large salt-shaker handy." > > "See my caveat about ColdBlu and salt shakers in my > previous post." > > "(See ColdBlu/salt shakers caveat.)" ColdBlu frequently gets his facts wrong (like his assertion that MMY's Shankaracharya didn't show up at his funeral). That's not a character flaw unless the motivation behind it is malign. I didn't speak to his motivation at all. The salt-shaker metaphor simply means don't take his word for anything, because he's often mistaken. > Admittedly, this is not the unprovoked hatchet job > that Judy did on John Knapp when he reappeared on FFL, > but it IS just as I predicted. And this won't be the > end of it. As coldblu joins in, Judy will find more > and more opportunities to impugn his character and > his credibility. Again, mark my words. Actually, as Barry knows, I engage ColdBlu only to correct him when I see that he's gotten his facts wrong. > > Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit > > of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was > > intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to > > mislead his readers. > > She says, STILL without having read the book. Referring, one more time, to what you quoted, not to the book as a whole. Does he then go on to acknowledge that he was mistaken and had inadvertently slammed the Vedanta system? If so, please quote that acknowledgment. > Does anyone here remember Judy's "Apocalypto" meltdown? :-) That would be the "meltdown" that Barry made up out of whole cloth and reinvokes at every opportunity as if it had really happened. > > > He was > > > a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- > > > sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. > > > Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- > > > umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- > > > less. Unlike you, who merely read books to "verify" > > > what you already "know" from Maharishi. :-) > > > > Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered > > MMY's teaching. > > Several *thousands* of books on Eastern philosophy? Did I suggest I had read as many books as he did, or just that it wasn't the case that I had "merely read books to 'verify'" what I already knew from MMY? Isn't it funny how Barry constantly hallucinates that I said things I didn't? Wonder how that happens. > > > read it. H...sounds as if you're "reviewing" > > > things without reading them again. > > > > Uh, no. I was "reviewing" the paragraph you posted, > > you see, and I read it several times. > > And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused > PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead > his readers. In that paragraph, yes. > > > You *snipped* the important part of the quote I > > > posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did > > > so because it applies to YOU more than anything else > > > in the passage, and more than anyone else on this > > > forum: > > > > > > > Their view; it is cosmic. Not of a man here, a child > > > > there, but an abstraction: race, land, Volk. Land. Blut. > > > > Ehre. Not of honorable men but of Ehre itself, honor; > > > > the abstract is real, the actual is invisible to them. > > > > Obviously it doesn't apply to me at all. > > *In my opinion*, it applies to you more than any > other regular poster to this forum. And has for years. As I said: When you're tempted to compare people you know personally (even if only electronically) to Nazis, it's a good idea to sit back and ask yourself whether you're beginning to lose touch with reality in your eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of your thinking. > > But the > > interesting thing here is, this paragraph *contradicts* > > the paragr
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So what caused the quake in England last year down near > Folkestone? I bet if we were a Hindu country it would be > blamed on the number of single mothers living on council > estates there. Or maybe disappointmnet at Henman losing > wimbledon again. Quite telling of the British psyche perhaps -- since Henman retired last year (2007) from Wimbledon. Waiting for Godot? :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I don't strongly defend all things TM. Thee fact that you > > > perceive my rather moderate comments suggests that you > > > have some "issues" in that regard. > > > > You gotta be kidding. I don't believe you can read a post > > you think might be critical without trying to correct it. > > Confirmation bias much? > > Plus which, a lot of the "corrections" Lawson makes have > to do with the criticism having an inaccurate basis, not > claiming the corrected basis is "The Truth." Same with me, > for that matter. > > > Remember you even tried to rationalise about why my dog > > doesn't like amrit kalash! She's a freaking dog! Not an > > enemy of MMY or the movement, she doesn't give a shit about > > the age of enlightenment, all she wants is a walk twice a > > day. I have to say I was amused you'd waste a post over that, > > I think THAT is having an issue. > > Looks to me like an epic fail, sense-of-humor-wise, on > your part. I don't think so, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but it seemed like the same ol' same ol' from where I was sitting. He didn't respond to my reply so I thought I must have read it right, unlesss he thought I was too much of an asshole to bother with. I would've thought it was obvious I was joking in my post to Sal. Hence my surprise that anyone would question whether the dog is somehow at fault. > And you even got what he said wrong. He wondered whether > your dog was "stupid," not whether she was an enemy of > MMY or the movement or the age of enlightenment. To somebody who has obviously spent huge swathes of his life defending the TMO I thought it must be the same thing, if you think a dog must be stupid not to appreciate the 'synergistic perfection of natures intelligence' what am I to think? And why are you even answering this? I don't get it, if Lawson is annoyed by me taking the piss because he thought there's some sort of corrleation between animal taste buds and intelligence he can have a go, he's capable of fighting his corner. Maybe he thought I was an asshole and over-reacted, until he speaks we won't know. But it isn't like there's no precedent to correct all perceived errors in the pair of you. If it was meant to be funny for Gods sake set a precedent every now and again or we'll never know!
[FairfieldLife] Choosing a Mate, Choosing a Movement
There seem to be some strong and useful parallels between the pitfalls of chosing a mate, and being overrun by infatuation, and choosing a "movement" or organization that one commits much time, attention and values. [Comments in brackets.] July 6, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist An Ideal Husband By MAUREEN DOWD This weekend, we celebrate our great American pastime: messy celebrity divorces. There's the Christie Brinkley/Peter Cook fireworks on Long Island and the Madonna/Guy Ritchie/A-Rod Roman candle in New York. So how do you avoid a relationship where you end up saying, "The man who I was living with, I just didn't know who he was" as Brinkley did in court when talking about her husband's $3,000-a-month Internet porn and swinger site habit? (Not to mention the 18-year-old mistress/assistant.) Father Pat Connor, a 79-year-old Catholic priest born in Australia and based in Bordentown, N.J., has spent his celibate life including nine years as a missionary in India mulling connubial bliss. His decades of marriage counseling led him to distill some "mostly common sense" advice about how to dodge mates who would maul your happiness. "Hollywood says you can be deeply in love with someone and then your marriage will work," the twinkly eyed, white-haired priest says. "But you can be deeply in love with someone to whom you cannot be successfully married." For 40 years, he has been giving a lecture "Whom Not to Marry" to high school seniors, mostly girls because they're more interested. "It's important to do it before they fall seriously in love, because then it will be too late," he explains. "Infatuation trumps judgment." I asked him to summarize his talk: "Never marry a man who has no friends," he starts. [Does the TMO have strong relations with oter groups?] "This usually means that he will be incapable of the intimacy that marriage demands. I am always amazed at the number of men I have counseled who have no friends. Since, as the Hebrew Scriptures say, `Iron shapes iron and friend shapes friend,' what are his friends like? What do your friends and family members think of him? Sometimes, your friends can't render an impartial judgment because they are envious that you are beating them in the race to the altar. Envy beclouds judgment. "Does he use money responsibly? [TMO -- not so much] Is he stingy? Most marriages that founder do so because of money she's thrifty, he's on his 10th credit card. "Steer clear of someone whose life you can run, who never makes demands counter to yours. It's good to have a doormat in the home, but not if it's your husband. [ And stay clear of those that make 24/7 demands on your life?] "Is he overly attached to his mother and her mythical apron strings? [Strongly attached to tradition and teacher?] When he wants to make a decision, say, about where you should go on your honeymoon, he doesn't consult you, he consults his mother. (I've known cases where the mother accompanies the couple on their honeymoon!) "Does he have a sense of humor? [The TMO HAD a sense of humor in the later 60's early 70s. Where did you go Joe Dimaggio ...] That covers a multitude of sins. My mother was once asked how she managed to live harmoniously with three men my father, brother and me. Her answer, delivered with awesome arrogance, was: `You simply operate on the assumption that no man matures after the age of 11.' My father fell about laughing. "A therapist friend insists that `more marriages are killed by silence than by violence.' The strong, silent type can be charming but ultimately destructive. That world-class misogynist, Paul of Tarsus, got it right when he said, `In all your dealings with one another, speak the truth to one another in love that you may grow up.' "Don't marry a problem character thinking you will change him. [Its hard to reform deep organizational wierdness] He's a heavy drinker, or some other kind of addict, but if he marries a good woman, he'll settle down. People are the same after marriage as before, only more so. "Take a good, unsentimental look at his family you'll learn a lot about him and his attitude towards women.[Inner circle] Kay made a monstrous mistake marrying Michael Corleone! Is there a history of divorce in the family? An atmosphere of racism, sexism or prejudice in his home? Are his goals and deepest beliefs worthy and similar to yours? I remember counseling a pious Catholic woman that it might not be prudent to marry a pious Muslim, whose attitude about women was very different. Love trumped prudence; the annulment process was instigated by her six months later. "Imagine a religious fundamentalist married to an agnostic. One would have to pray that the fundamentalist doesn't open the Bible and hit the page in which Abraham is willing to obey God and slit his son's throat. "Finally: Does he possess those character traits that add up to a good human being the willingness to forgive, praise, be courteous? [Does the organization A
[FairfieldLife] Deep Down, We Cant Fool Even Ourselves
The research findings appear to explain some interesting behaviors on FFL. And in life. Skewing of moral reasoning, group affinities, the rational antidote. Whew. Good tuff. Deep Down, We Can't Fool Even Ourselves By JOHN TIERNEY NYT In voting against the Bush tax cut in 2001, Senator John McCain said he "cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." Today he campaigns in favor of extending that same tax cut beyond its expiration date. Senator Barack Obama last year called himself a "longtime advocate" of public financing of election campaigns. This month, he reiterated his "support" for such financing while becoming the first major party presidential nominee ever to reject it for his own campaign. Do you think either of these men is a hypocrite? If so, does this hypocrite really believe, in his heart, what he is saying? Fortunately, we don't need to get into the fine points of taxes or campaign finances to take a stab at these questions. We can probably get further by looking at some experiments in what psychologists call moral hypocrisy. This is a more devious form of hypocrisy than what was exhibited by, say, the governor of New York when he got caught patronizing a prostitute. It was obviously hypocritical behavior for a public official who had formerly prosecuted prostitutes and increased penalties for their customers, but at least Eliot Spitzer acknowledged his actions were wrong by anyone's standards. The moral hypocrite, by contrast, has convinced himself that he is acting virtuously even when he does something he would condemn in others. You can understand this "self-halo" effect and perhaps discover it in someone very close to you by considering what happened when two psychologists, Piercarlo Valdesolo and David DeSteno, tested people's reactions to the following situation. You show up for an experiment and are told that you and a person arriving later will each have to do a different task on a computer. One job involves a fairly easy hunt through photos that will take just 10 minutes. The other task is a more tedious exercise in mental geometry that takes 45 minutes. You get to decide how to divvy up the chores: either let a computer assign the tasks randomly, or make the assignments yourself. Either way, the other person will not know you had anything to do with the assignments. Now, what is the fair way to divvy up the chores? When the researchers posed this question in the abstract to people who were not involved in the tasks, everyone gave the same answer: It would be unfair to give yourself the easy job. But when the researchers actually put another group of people in this situation, more than three-quarters of them took the easy job. Then, under subsequent questioning, they gave themselves high marks for acting fairly. The researchers call this moral hypocrisy because the people were absolving themselves of violating a widely held standard of fairness (even though they themselves hadn't explicitly endorsed that standard beforehand). A double standard of morality also emerged when other people were arbitrarily divided in two groups and given differently colored wristbands. They watched as one person, either from their group or from the other group, went through the exercise and assigned himself the easy job. Even though the observers had no personal stake in the outcome they knew they would not be stuck with the boring job they were still biased. On average, they judged it to be unfair for someone in the other group to give himself the easy job, but they considered it fair when someone in their own group did the same thing. "Anyone who is on `our team' is excused for moral transgressions," said Dr. DeSteno, a psychologist at Northeastern University. "The importance of group cohesion, of any type, simply extends our moral radius for lenience. Basically, it's a form of one person's patriot is another's terrorist." If a colored wristband is enough to skew your moral judgment, imagine how you are affected by the "D" or the "R" label on your voting registration. If you are a Democrat, you are more likely to think Mr. McCain hypocritically switched tax policies to pick up conservative votes, but Mr. Obama's decision to abandon public financing probably looks more complicated. If you're a Republican you're likelier to figure Mr. Obama did it just so he could raise more money on his own, but you're more willing to consider Mr. McCain's economic rationales. The more interesting question is how presidential candidates, and their supporters, turn into hypocrites. It has been demonstrated repeatedly in experiments that humans are remarkably sensitive to unfairness. We've survived as social animals because we are so good at spotting selfishness and punishing antisocial behavior. So how we do violate our own moral code? Does our gut instinct for self-preservation override our moral reasoning? Do we use our powers of ra
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > I don't strongly defend all things TM. Thee fact that you > > perceive my rather moderate comments suggests that you have > > some "issues" in that regard. > > > Why the attack back? Please don't read my mind, you don't know > if I do or do not have issues. I was just asking a question > about why you tend to defend all things TM. Just curious as to > why. He just pointed out that he *doesn't" defend all things TM, so your question was of the form "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Yet you repeat the assertion at the basis of your question as if it hadn't been challenged. And that doesn't suggest you have issues? For that matter, why do you perceive the suggestion that you have issues as an "attack"? Everybody's entitled to have issues.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > As far as why you guys never heard something, that doesn't > > > surprise me at all. There are hundreds of hours of Maharishi > > > discussions you haven't heard. The teaching at the centers > > > was always the most conservative and cautious version of > > > Maharishi's teaching. > > > > Uh-huh. But both Lawson and I have been on lots of > > courses, including the TM-Sidhis course and subsequent > > WPAs, so it wasn't just the basic teaching at the > > centers. > > With all due respect, Judy, that is simply not true. Actually it's entirely true. I heard things on courses that I never heard at the centers. > You like to *think* that you got the "whole story" by > hanging around on the periphery. Never suggested that. That's why I was asking Curtis what he had heard, you see. > So you certainly did NOT hear the "whole story," Judy. Never said I did, Barry. > That's not your fault; it's HIS. But PLEASE don't > claim here that you got an accurate picture of either > what went down on a daily basis in the TM organization, > or that you got an accurate picture of Maharishi's > teachings. Neither happened. Neither ever will. Didn't claim either, of course. My point was in what you conveniently snipped: > > Just like Lawson did, people in the centers were supposed to > > parrot the same phrases over and over no matter what the > > question. In the setting on rounding courses at MIU we could > > discuss meditation assuming a baseline of understanding. > > Right. But both Lawson and I have been on rounding > courses, including at MIU. We've been meditating for > many years, so we have a pretty good baseline of > understanding.
[FairfieldLife] Re: could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "claudiouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nature supposedly knows best how to organize and it administers the > cosmos without problems. Except suffering exists everywhere you look.. > Nature seems wholly mechanical and amoral in its operations. And yet > karma is supposed to be a hidden moral force which overlaps individual > lifetimes in its influence and eventually ensures that beings evolve to > conquer ignorance and finally enjoy their underlying blissful nature > etc.. MMY claims that the Laws of Nature aren't punitive - just that > their violation causes suffering. Is karmic trial and error really the > most efficient method for beings to conquer ignorance and suffering? > > Computer models have been created to see how complex systems and > imaginary organisms behave and evolve, using simple rules as starting > points, bit like fractal generation etc. I'm wondering if anyone > anywhere has thought of creating such a computer "universe" to explore > how the "reap what you sow" principle would work out. Some of the > simple rules to use might include "pleasure-seeking, pain > avoidance"; "competition, co-operation";"scarce resources, fluctuating > life-threatening challenges" etc? Presumably the final conquering of > ignorance, via a transcendental practice, would become an available > resource after a certain accumulation of "merit"? Never played computer > games but I guess there are games where a fighter has to accumulate > resources in order to reach a goal.. > > What would be the point anyway? One is - just the application of > computer modelling to a moral question related to Eastern philosophy - > whether it's at all possible as an idea; Another point might be to > check out whether, like fractal generation, there are any interesting > surprises that unfold, whether "reap as you sow" actually works, at > least for these computer creatures. > > Is it a completely mad and useless idea? No! It's an absolutely brilliant idea. There are two things you could demonstrate. First is that the world appears to function perfectly well without any supernatural interference. Which is where I'd put my money. Second is that no computer system can predict human or natural/meteorological behaviour without adding some sort of divine retribution for misdeeds. Of course you might just be proving that it's impossible to accurately predict from such large starting points but if there is something to it a pattern should emerge and with such fundamental forces at work it should be quite a strong signal! Should be easy to do too, the trouble with karma is that it's always only retroactively applied when something goes wrong. Like the recent floods in Iowa were put down by some to there being too many gays and fornicators living in the next town. What you have to do is show that such weather is impossible without "immoral" human behaviour occuring nearby. Being able to claim that it's only a natural hurricane is pointless, if some weather is down to human behaviour or moods, all of it must be. There must be a way of working out a ratio of commandment- breaks to catastrophies. It would be easy to see if, for instance, China's invasion of Tibet caused it's recent earthquake by seeing how many earthquakes have also affected other countries recently and what there foriegn policies are like. So what caused the quake in England last year down near Folkestone? I bet if we were a Hindu country it would be blamed on the number of single mothers living on council estates there. Or maybe disappointmnet at Henman losing wimbledon again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems to me that the "think for themselves" group > exemplifies the best that spirituality has to offer, > while the "gotta refute or demonize the heretics" > group exemplifies the worst that spirituality has > to offer. And this forum gives me the opportunity > to appreciate the former and laugh at the latter. > Who could ask for more than that in an Internet > chat forum? :-) Turn that around, and you have the answer to your question as to why *we're* here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > I don't strongly defend all things TM. Thee fact that you > > perceive my rather moderate comments suggests that you > > have some "issues" in that regard. > > You gotta be kidding. I don't believe you can read a post > you think might be critical without trying to correct it. Confirmation bias much? Plus which, a lot of the "corrections" Lawson makes have to do with the criticism having an inaccurate basis, not claiming the corrected basis is "The Truth." Same with me, for that matter. > Remember you even tried to rationalise about why my dog > doesn't like amrit kalash! She's a freaking dog! Not an > enemy of MMY or the movement, she doesn't give a shit about > the age of enlightenment, all she wants is a walk twice a > day. I have to say I was amused you'd waste a post over that, > I think THAT is having an issue. Looks to me like an epic fail, sense-of-humor-wise, on your part. And you even got what he said wrong. He wondered whether your dog was "stupid," not whether she was an enemy of MMY or the movement or the age of enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Turq, you write good often. > > > > > > > > Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints & > > > > catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with > > > > original criticism. > > > > > > Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way > > > overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush > > > is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and > > > subtle and complex and contradictory. > > > > Ah, Judy's back. And who does she choose to > > attack first? > > Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when > I got back. After I've been away, I start with the > most recent posts and work my way back. While that may be true, I think everyone here knows WHY you replied to it, trashing me. It's because Doug found something of value in my post, and complimented me on it. Can't have that. Time for "Gotta Trash Barry" mode. :-) > > > Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* > > she will attack, because she cannot refute his > > facts. Mark my words. :-) > > Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu > to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked > his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? > Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held > accountable for anything he says. Here is what Judy said about coldblu, in her first posts. You can decide whether it was an "attack" or not. I tend to think it is...she is *explicitly* attempting to undermine his credibility. (By the way, I read these after writing my prediction.) "...it's a good idea to take anything ColdBlu says with a large salt-shaker handy." "See my caveat about ColdBlu and salt shakers in my previous post." "(See ColdBlu/salt shakers caveat.)" Admittedly, this is not the unprovoked hatchet job that Judy did on John Knapp when he reappeared on FFL, but it IS just as I predicted. And this won't be the end of it. As coldblu joins in, Judy will find more and more opportunities to impugn his character and his credibility. Again, mark my words. > > > > [quoting Dick:] > > > > > And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, > > > > > not the victims, of history. They identify with God's > > > > > power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic > > > > > madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos > > > > > have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell > > > > > where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not > > > > > hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its > > > > > ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that > > > > > which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten > > > > > man. > > > > > > And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against > > > certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some > > > practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if > > > they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be > > > completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for > > > example, is that Atman = Brahman. > > > > Uh, Judy...you should do a little research before > > you choose to slime someone. Philip K. Dick had > > almost certainly read more books about Eastern > > philosophy and spirituality than YOU have. > > Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit > of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was > intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to > mislead his readers. She says, STILL without having read the book. Does anyone here remember Judy's "Apocalypto" meltdown? :-) > > He was > > a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- > > sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. > > Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- > > umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- > > less. Unlike you, who merely read books to "verify" > > what you already "know" from Maharishi. :-) > > Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered > MMY's teaching. Several *thousands* of books on Eastern philosophy? According to his good friends in the SciFi community, that's what PKD had on his shelves, and could discuss intelligently. > > > read it. H...sounds as if you're "reviewing" > > things without reading them again. > > Uh, no. I was "reviewing" the paragraph you posted, > you see, and I read it several times. And above, based on only that paragraph, you accused PKD of bigotry and of intentionally trying to mislead his readers. This is a deja vu of your "Apocalypto" meltdown, right? :-) > > > You *snipped* the important part of the quote I > > posted and rapped about. And in my opinion you did > > so because it applies to YOU more than anything else > > in the passage, and more than anyone else on this > > forum: > > > > > Their view; it is c
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You were TAUGHT -- over and over and over and over -- > to believe that anyone who walked away from TM "never > got what MMY was saying." If they *had*, there would > have been no reason TO walk away, right? > > You don't remember it, but that WAS what you were taught. > And you believe it to this day. Funny, I don't remember it either. And it's certainly not anything I believe. THAT is why you try to > demonize people like Vaj and Curtis and myself by saying > that we "never got it." (Sets the bar for "demonization" pretty low, don't it?) Speaking for myself, when I suggest people like Vaj and Curtis and yourself "never got it," it's on the basis of what you've said about it. I suspect the same is the case with Lawson. > Free clue: we did. I was considered one of the teachers > on the West Coast who "got it" the *most*, and who could > most accurately parrot what I'd been taught to parrot. > That is exactly WHY I was the person who took over for > the Regional Coordinator when he was on courses; that is > why I was made a State Coordinator. I was not just a > parrot, I was a "honcho parrot." :-) And anybody who can accurately parrot must therefore have "really gotten it," right? Wrong. All that indicates is a good memory for a script. > We "got" what Maharishi was saying. We just *rejected* > it, that's all. Question is whether you rejected what he was *actually* saying or your distorted understanding thereof. My money's on the latter, given how distorted much of your discourse on what he taught has been. > I have NEVER given instructions on how to meditate on this > forum, or recommended a form of meditation. Not ONCE. It > is just not something I DO any more. That you believe > otherwise reveals your own paranoia about being "converted" > more than it says anything about me. You used to do it on alt.m.t, just for the record. > > > If I had, I dare say that I would have had the perspec- > > > tive to tell one technique from another. You don't > > > even seem to have the perspective to tell one > > > poster from another. > > > > They all merge together, having much the same thing to say. > > That statement reveals the *depths* of your ignorance, > Lawson. Different posters here DO have different things > to say; I do not agree with all that Vaj says, or with > all of what Curtis says. They know that; why don't you? I suspect by "much the same thing to say" he means denigrating TM/MMY, such as: "We are discussing *meditation* and self discovery, Lawson, not one trademarked and ripped-off and diluted form of it." And comparing TM unfavorably to other practices, such as: "Most of the forms I practice believe that the effectiveness of the meditation comes from how long one is able to spend in samadhi during each session. The ideal is pretty much the entire meditation session, with no more than a dozen thoughts appearing in an hour." As if that were clearly "better" than what happens with TM. Is it possible that when you were doing TM, you found yourself frustrated by only brief glimpses of samadhi and attempted to engineer your practice in order to extend them?
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: Anti-Science Non-meditators Must be Stopped
Certify your meditation for effortlessness. It is noticable that many posting here on Rick Archer's FFL board are, non-meditators. Fallen-away meditators. The Committee should very much like to see fallen-away meditators, especially like you, come back home to group meditation. Git your meditation checked first. Come to meditation, it is the only way. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't strongly defend all things TM. Thee fact that you perceive my rather > moderate comments suggests that you have some "issues" in that regard. > Why the attack back? Please don't read my mind, you don't know if I do or do not have issues. I was just asking a question about why you tend to defend all things TM. Just curious as to why. If you are curious why I don't defend TM and in fact criticize it, you can ask. Sandiego asked and I answered.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Philip K. Dick's writings about Fairfield Life
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > > wrote: > > > > > > Turq, you write good often. > > > > > > Back home now from the crusades with the lady-saints & > > > catching up on FFL; this post is some good writing with > > > original criticism. > > > > Well, no, it's really not. It's shallow and way > > overblown. Painting cartoons with a broad brush > > is easy, but reality is a lot more nuanced and > > subtle and complex and contradictory. > > Ah, Judy's back. And who does she choose to > attack first? Doug's post quoting yours was the first I read when I got back. After I've been away, I start with the most recent posts and work my way back. > Next will be coldblueiceman, whose *character* > she will attack, because she cannot refute his > facts. Mark my words. :-) Sez Barry, not having read my responses to coldblu to see that I've refuted his facts and not attacked his character. Will Barry acknowledge his error? Don't hold your breath. Barry is not to be held accountable for anything he says. > > Any time one is tempted to compare others to Nazis, > > especially those one knows personally (even if only > > electronically), one should sit back and have a long > > think about whether one has perhaps begun to lose > > touch with reality in one's eagerness to impress > > others with the grandiosity of one's ideas. > > Unless, of course, the people in question really > act like Nazis. Like you, meine TB liebchen. :-) Like I said: Time to sit back and have a long think about whether you've lost touch with reality in your eagerness to impress others with the grandiosity of your ideas. Speaking of predictability, by the time I'd read the third line of the second paragraph of your post, I knew you would go on to suggest that TMers were Nazis. > > [quoting Dick:] > > > > And, he thought, I know why. They want to be the agents, > > > > not the victims, of history. They identify with God's > > > > power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic > > > > madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos > > > > have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell > > > > where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not > > > > hubris, not pride; it is the inflation of the ego to its > > > > ultimate -- confusion between him who worships and that > > > > which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten > > > > man. > > > > And this is, perhaps just ignorantly, bigoted against > > certain forms of Eastern spirituality. Not that some > > practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if > > they get deeply into moodmaking; but Dick seems to be > > completely unaware that the very basis for Vedanta, for > > example, is that Atman = Brahman. > > Uh, Judy...you should do a little research before > you choose to slime someone. Philip K. Dick had > almost certainly read more books about Eastern > philosophy and spirituality than YOU have. Could well be. In that case, my giving him the benefit of the doubt was in error, and the bigotry was intentional. Not to mention that he was trying to mislead his readers. He was > a compulsive reader of such things. He was con- > sidered somewhat of a scholar on Eastern thought. > Not as much as Jack Kerouac (who wrote whole vol- > umes on Buddhist thought), but a scholar nonethe- > less. Unlike you, who merely read books to "verify" > what you already "know" from Maharishi. :-) Uh, no. Read quite a bit before I ever encountered MMY's teaching. > read it. H...sounds as if you're "reviewing" > things without reading them again. Uh, no. I was "reviewing" the paragraph you posted, you see, and I read it several times. > What PKD had that you don't, however, was the ability > to read something and not automatically buy it as > Truth. He knew FAR better than you the *theory* > behind Eastern philosophies, but *at the same time* > was able to view their claims (and, more important, > the actions of those who made the claims) as psychosis, > when such an analysis was valid. Which is just what I said: "Not that some practitioners of these forms can't become psychotic if they get deeply into moodmaking..." Funny you missed that. But in the paragraph you quoted, he appeared to be dismissing the validity of the whole approach, rather than noting that it could be valid if it was undertaken properly, and that the people he was referring to had gone overboard. > Besides, your entire argument above is a straw man, > thrown together for no other reason than "Gotta Trash > Barry." In the passage, Dick was describing NAZIS, > who did NOT believe that Atman = Brahman. And you were the one who claimed he was talking about TMers on FFL (see subject heading, for one). That's what I'm addressing, the absurdity of the notion, which you've just confirmed, thank you very much
[FairfieldLife] could "reap as you sow" be computer tested?
Nature supposedly knows best how to organize and it administers the cosmos without problems. Except suffering exists everywhere you look.. Nature seems wholly mechanical and amoral in its operations. And yet karma is supposed to be a hidden moral force which overlaps individual lifetimes in its influence and eventually ensures that beings evolve to conquer ignorance and finally enjoy their underlying blissful nature etc.. MMY claims that the Laws of Nature aren't punitive - just that their violation causes suffering. Is karmic trial and error really the most efficient method for beings to conquer ignorance and suffering? Computer models have been created to see how complex systems and imaginary organisms behave and evolve, using simple rules as starting points, bit like fractal generation etc. I'm wondering if anyone anywhere has thought of creating such a computer "universe" to explore how the "reap what you sow" principle would work out. Some of the simple rules to use might include "pleasure-seeking, pain avoidance"; "competition, co-operation";"scarce resources, fluctuating life-threatening challenges" etc? Presumably the final conquering of ignorance, via a transcendental practice, would become an available resource after a certain accumulation of "merit"? Never played computer games but I guess there are games where a fighter has to accumulate resources in order to reach a goal.. What would be the point anyway? One is - just the application of computer modelling to a moral question related to Eastern philosophy - whether it's at all possible as an idea; Another point might be to check out whether, like fractal generation, there are any interesting surprises that unfold, whether "reap as you sow" actually works, at least for these computer creatures. Is it a completely mad and useless idea?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > As far as why you guys never heard something, that doesn't > > surprise me at all. There are hundreds of hours of Maharishi > > discussions you haven't heard. The teaching at the centers > > was always the most conservative and cautious version of > > Maharishi's teaching. > > Uh-huh. But both Lawson and I have been on lots of > courses, including the TM-Sidhis course and subsequent > WPAs, so it wasn't just the basic teaching at the > centers. With all due respect, Judy, that is simply not true. If all that you attended was TM courses taught by TM teachers (not Maharishi), you really DID miss a great deal. I ran the West Coast Regional Office for some years. Part of my job was to get detailed instructions from "International" about what was to be taught on these courses and, more important, what was NOT to be taught, under any circumstances. Audio and video tapes were *carefully* selected, and then later recalled, edited, and re-released in a censored form. The *only* place you were likely to hear what Maharishi *really* thought about things was *sitting in a room with Maharishi*. That was the ONLY environment in the TM movement that was NOT censored. The censorship came afterwards, with Maharishi himself telling people to "Burn that tape!" after a stinging diatribe about someone or something, or "International" doing the same thing. Whole *books* were recalled and re-edited, with the parts that had become embarrassing to the TMO excised from them. You like to *think* that you got the "whole story" by hanging around on the periphery. But you didn't. You were on the next-to-lowest rung of evolution, TM-wise. Most teachers would never have *dreamed* of telling you the things they heard directly from Maharishi. You may choose to not believe this, but it's true. And it probably became even *more* true in the years after I bailed from the TMO. Bottom line is that from Maharishi's point of view, YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T MATTER. You were NOTHING, or less than nothing. The only people who mattered to him were the ones who did *exactly* what he told them to do -- quit their jobs, work full-time for the TMO or (even better) mooch off their relatives so that they could attend courses full-time. THEY were the people who Maharishi talked to on courses, the ones who had gotten themselves into the room with him. As far as I could tell, NO ONE ELSE MATTERED. It was very "Be here now," and if you weren't you were of no interest, and no worth. So you certainly did NOT hear the "whole story," Judy. You made lifestyle choices that relegated you to read- ing and watching on videotape the "Reader's Digest version" of Maharishi and his teachings. That's not your fault; it's HIS. But PLEASE don't claim here that you got an accurate picture of either what went down on a daily basis in the TM organization, or that you got an accurate picture of Maharishi's teachings. Neither happened. Neither ever will.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Me, I *like* a lot of the people here. They're really > neat. They've been there, done that. I like some of > the ones who still practice TM religiously, and I like > others who wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot Shiva > lingam. I like them because they're not afraid to > *think for themselves*. > 30 years ago The Turk left the Movement. Yet day after day, every day of the week he is struggeling here on FFL with the encounters of the Divine. Dr. Peter, any comments ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:21 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > We "got" what Maharishi was saying. We just *rejected* > > it, that's all. And quite frankly, you are still so > > brainwashed that you think that's some kind of failing > > or "sin." > > In all honesty, I didn't reject it at first, but became suspicious > over time. It was only later when I met up with living exemplars > of the tradition MMY claims to come from that you could see that > important knowledge was being left out, things were being > distorted or diluted and the TMO version of yoga and advaita > Vedanta was a departure from both the Patanjali and Vedanta > traditions (although with marginal similarities). In equal honesty, I didn't even *think* about TM and Maharishi for years after I left. They never crossed my mind. I walked away because it was obvious that I no longer "fit" in the organization, and that its goals were not mine. I saw that organization treat- ing people unethically (and often illegally) on a daily basis, and knew that if I stayed, I'd have to as well. And I saw no one -- NO ONE -- getting enlightened in the process of treating people unethically and illegally. So I bailed. And then I spent a while on my own, and then got into the Rama trip, and *still* hadn't ever thought about TM and Maharishi and the TMO until, *years* later, I stumbled upon alt.meditation.transcendental. What I found there amused and entertained me, and does still -- people who still thought that TM and Maharishi were still relevant to their lives, or relevant to *anything*, and who thought this so strongly that they were willing to argue about it, day in and day out. It's the TM True Believer Syndrome that fascinated me then, and that still does. Moreover, it's the *masochistic* TM True Believer Syndrome that fascinates me. Most of the *real* TBs would never be caught dead on a place like a.m.t. or FFL; that would be "entertaining negativity." And yet, there are a dedicated handful who do just that, and have for over 15 years, on both forums. They *know* what the forums they hang out on are like, they *know* that most people on them have learned to think for themselves and have opinions about TM, Maharishi, and the TMO that they find offensive, and they *know* that for whatever reason they feel compelled to "refute" them, to "set things right." These few (on this forum, pretty much only sparaig, Judy, Nabby, and occasionally off_world) seem to LIVE for "entertaining negativity." They GET OFF on "negativity" about TM, Maharishi, and the TMO; it's as if it gives their life meaning, allows them to don their warrior costumes, and ride into battle singing "Yo ho...yo ho!" It also seems to me as if riding into battle and "defending the faith" is the *only* thing that gives their life meaning. I *missed out* on most of the things that people on this forum bitch about re the TMO. It was of no possible relevance to my life or interest to me for many, many years. It was only when I discovered a.m.t. and later FFL that I really began to *examine* the dogma and the bullshit and riff on it in writing and, as a result, begin to reject much of it. Then again, I also reject much of the dogma and the bullshit from the Rama trip and from mainstream Buddhism, so it's not as if I'm rejecting *only* TM. I just reject dogma and bullshit, wherever I find it. The TM TBs on this forum keep asking "Why are you here, all these years later?," as if that's some kind of putdown. One might instead ask them "Why are YOU here?" What do you GET out of being a "defender of the faith" on such a consistent basis? Don't you have anything else going on in YOUR lives? Me, I *like* a lot of the people here. They're really neat. They've been there, done that. I like some of the ones who still practice TM religiously, and I like others who wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot Shiva lingam. I like them because they're not afraid to *think for themselves*. The ones I like less are the ones who are *offended*, on a regular basis, by people thinking for themselves, and who compulsively feel that they have to "refute" that thinking (or sadder, demonize it) every time it appears. Seems to me that the "think for themselves" group exemplifies the best that spirituality has to offer, while the "gotta refute or demonize the heretics" group exemplifies the worst that spirituality has to offer. And this forum gives me the opportunity to appreciate the former and laugh at the latter. Who could ask for more than that in an Internet chat forum? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nab, sounds like you live in pretty black and white world. And it's > good to know that with few exceptions you feel no affintiy for anyone > here. Either your 100% in or 100% out, is what I hear you saying. Bush said: "Either you are with us or against us" - I'm not riding that bus. Fact is that Maharishi is the most forgiving and liberal person I've ever met. He certainly knew the struggles of people; He knew what pain was. "Been there, done that" I suppose. There was never a harsh word towards anyone on a personal level, ever. "Don't ever think you are fallen, just get on your feet and keep running." - Maharishi, Boppard 1982 But when it came to upholding the purity of the teaching He was without compromise. His vision was to transform Kali Yuga into Sat Yuga. According to Avatars like Shri Ma Ananda Mayi Ma, and advanced Theosophists like Benjamin Creme, Maharishi did very well indeed in this His lifelong endeavor. If you have heard my 100% I'd say there is another 100% and that is Love, so perfectly exposed by someone I am proud to call my friend. The friend of all Meditators; Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My visit to Seelisberg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is interesting that finding a suitable person wasn't a > problem at the other maths. Was that because they were > lesser in Shankara's intention and didn't need a superman > like Guru Dev? Why would there be a power stalemate at Jyotir Math but not at other maths? I have no idea. I think the idea that it was for other > reasons than not finding the right guy makes more sense > to me. Especially seeing how much infighting took place > afterwards. It sounds like a power stalemate until Guru > Dev came along. Sometimes power stalemates over choosing a leader can be resolved by finding a candidate who's so exceptional that nobody can object to him (or her in other contexts). Seems to me *both* could have been true, as long as we're speculating. But I'm just speculating, who knows. I am just re-examining > the hype claim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think you're bluffing about the whole thing, frankly. > > Either there was no new understanding, or you've > > forgotten what it was. > > I was discussing my practice and Lawson threw out a bunch of > introductory shit that didn't apply to my experience. He > missed my point completely. > > Do you think I should try to prove something I heard on my > Forest academy from a 6 month graduate around 1977-78? Did I say I thought you should try to prove it? Or did I ask you simply to state what it *was*? If you remembered it well enough to claim it meant Lawson was wrong, you ought to be willing to spill what it was. "Not interested" doesn't compute, Curtis. "You're wrong and I know why but I'm not going to tell you"? > You weren't there so how could I prove it? Even if I *was* there, there wouldn't be any way for you to "prove" it. Don't be ridiculous. I never suggested you should. That's a big fat red herring. What you *could* prove is that you had something in mind. But you aren't willing even to do that. I mentioned it to Lawson because he > was running the party line on me as if that might be news > to me. Or to say, "This is what I was told. Why are you saying it's irrelevant to your experience?" He was setting up a basis for discussion. FWIW, it's not only what I was told, it's my experience as well. The secret of TM instruction, in my observation, is that most of it is DEscriptive rather than PREscriptive. The rest of it is telling you not to mess with it. Here's how it works: don't try to engineer it, add anything to it, subtract anything from it. Just let it happen. And yes, I witness my meditation. Doesn't make any difference on this point as far as I can tell. > As far as why you guys never heard something, that doesn't > surprise me at all. There are hundreds of hours of Maharishi > discussions you haven't heard. The teaching at the centers > was always the most conservative and cautious version of > Maharishi's teaching. Uh-huh. But both Lawson and I have been on lots of courses, including the TM-Sidhis course and subsequent WPAs, so it wasn't just the basic teaching at the centers. > Just like Lawson did, people in the centers were supposed to > parrot the same phrases over and over no matter what the > question. In the setting on rounding courses at MIU we could > discuss meditation assuming a baseline of understanding. Right. But both Lawson and I have been on rounding courses, including at MIU. We've been meditating for many years, so we have a pretty good baseline of understanding. > Sometimes that happens here. > But not when the "gotcha" game is the priority. Oh, bull, Curtis. It's a dialectic, not a "gotcha" game. Or should be. Claiming you know something we don't and then refusing to say what it is is the "gotcha" game. > I am reevaluating what parts of Maharishi's understanding > apply to my experience now. Some people are helping me sort > it out and some are trying to be right about something. > Which group are you in? How do you expect to get help in sorting it out when you won't say what your premises are? If you say something that doesn't make sense to me, and I respond by saying what *does* make sense to me, that's a perfectly reasonable approach to helping you sort it out (or helping *me* sort out what you're saying). You don't further that process by claiming some secret knowledge that invalidates what makes sense to me as outdated and inapplicable.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Generic flame (this means you)
On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:21 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: We "got" what Maharishi was saying. We just *rejected* it, that's all. And quite frankly, you are still so brainwashed that you think that's some kind of failing or "sin." In all honesty, I didn't reject it at first, but became suspicious over time. It was only later when I met up with living exemplars of the tradition MMY claims to come from that you could see that important knowledge was being left out, things were being distorted or diluted and the TMO version of yoga and advaita Vedanta was a departure from both the Patanjali and Vedanta traditions (although with marginal similarities).
