[FairfieldLife] Re: Demo Of The Guitar Sidhi (was a great american guitarist)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: Miraculous competence! Amazing! http://tinyurl.com/6q6weu
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@... wrote: Ah, thank you Ruth. I was wondering given the record. Improved 'moral reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint present. Moral reasonging. It is a mouthful as he says it, but oddly there was not elaboration. Moral reasoning. Improved moral reasoning but a school and program with no ethical code or consideration. Not a we are this and not that to be found. No chart on moral behavior. No limit to what they will tolerate in ethical behavior. Very nuevo. Very nuevo. Not classic moral philosophy neither. TMorg mores, without conscience? 'what were they thinking?' Doug, they *weren't* thinking. They were doing what they were told to do. THAT is the bottom line of the TM movement so far, as far as I can tell. Now that movement is in a position where there is no one to tell them what to do. They have only two choices IMO -- to continue doing what they were told to do, or to forge new directions and do something else. The first path is safe. Given the history of spiritual traditions on this planet, no one is going to criticize them overmuch for continuing to do what they were told to do by the teacher they revere as more than human, and infallible because he was supposedly enlightened. The second path is *definitely* not safe. It is more akin to what Obama is trying to do with regard to the policies that precede him in American history. It entails starting with an apology for past behavior, and starting over with all-new behavior. While I understand the emotion and the feelings that underlie your ongoing posts on addressing the inequities of the past, personally I don't think that's ever going to happen in the TMO, and CAN'T ever happen in the TMO. Reasons for my belief follow. Emerson los transcendentalists saw conscience as a faculty of moral instinct. An inner transcendental form as they saw it to develop. A faculty and a soul of a voice. At the least, that little voice inside that says, No. Ethics: a system of moral standards or values Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment conscience different from reasoning. Conscience as that faculty of clear quiet brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral guidance, its ethics. Unethical. Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad ethical code? Does sort of reflect on them that there is not anywhere in the MUM catalog a code of ethic they would stand by in their governance and way of doing business. A non-tolerance of bad behavior anywhere. That's because there was a *clear* definition in place for what constitutes right behavior and what constitutes wrong behavior. That definition was expressed in one word -- Maharishisez. THAT is the bottom line of the moral code that ruled and continues to rule the TM movement. *By definition*, because of related definitions of enlightenment and the supposed infallibility of the actions of the supposedly enlightened, what- ever he said to do was right action. There was never any *need* for a moral code because the dogma Maharishi taught was clear about what moral entails -- Do what I say because it is by definition in tune with the laws of nature. If you do, you are welcome to stay. If you don't, you must leave. Now that he is no longer around *to* say what is moral and what is not, IMO the leaders of the TMO are floundering around trying to figure out what to do. They have available to them two options -- continue to do the same old same old Mahrishisez stuff, or try something new. Spiritual Regeneration. Leading on Hagelin has missed a chance entirely coming off of the death of Maharishi to walk erect and say, We are not that hence forth we will not tolerate bad behaviors in our doings our books are open and our dealings will be forthright, transparent honest from here on. The past, was just a lesser state of conscience consciousness. While I agree with you that such an open approach would be welcomed by many, I think you're fooling yourself if you think it will ever happen. If it ever DOES happen, it will happen quietly, with no fanfare. Openness will slowly and quietly become policy, but without ever announcing it. TO announce would be to imply that the old way of doing things was WRONG. And that CANNOT ever happen in the TM movement. Ever. There is simply no possibility within the organiza- tion that Maharishi created for its leaders to say that he might have been wrong about something. The very dogma of enlightenment that he proposed makes this impossible to admit. If the organization wants to claim that he was enlightened, then following Maharishi's *own* definitions, *every* action he performed, every pronouncement he made, and every policy he instituted or approved is *by definition* right action. As long as you are
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
When John talks about moral reasoning improving, I'm sure he's talking about some sort of assessment utilizing Kohlberg's model of moral reasoning. The irony is that there is a poor correlation between moral reasoning and moral behavior. For most of us, research indicates that we have morals of convenience for the most part. --- On Tue, 1/6/09, dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: From: dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain) To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 10:52 PM Ah, thank you Ruth. I was wondering given the record. Improved 'moral reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint present. Moral reasonging. It is a mouthful as he says it, but oddly there was not elaboration. Moral reasoning. Improved moral reasoning but a school and program with no ethical code or consideration. Not a we are this and not that to be found. No chart on moral behavior. No limit to what they will tolerate in ethical behavior. Very nuevo. Very nuevo. Not classic moral philosophy neither. TMorg mores, without conscience? 'what were they thinking?' Emerson los transcendentalists saw conscience as a faculty of moral instinct. An inner transcendental form as they saw it to develop. A faculty and a soul of a voice. At the least, that little voice inside that says, No. Ethics: a system of moral standards or values Conscience: as that inner faculty of moral discernment conscience different from reasoning. Conscience as that faculty of clear quiet brain wherein the brain receives its soul of moral guidance, its ethics. Unethical. Is the culture of the TMo without conscience or just bad ethical code? Does sort of reflect on them that there is not anywhere in the MUM catalog a code of ethic they would stand by in their governance and way of doing business. A non-tolerance of bad behavior anywhere. Spiritual Regeneration. Leading on Hagelin has missed a chance entirely coming off of the death of Maharishi to walk erect and say, We are not that… hence forth we will not tolerate bad behaviors in our doings… our books are open and our dealings will be forthright, transparent honest from here on. The past, was just a lesser state of conscience consciousness. The instruction is simple and, in my day, oft repeated: Do not do that which you know to be wrong. So the question would be, in interviewing someone who did something the rest of us find morally compromised, Did you simply not know such an act was wrong? Or did you know, yet do it anyway? To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
Alex wrote: I checked the logs, and you did delete two posts, but that still leaves you at 51. shemp wrote: If one could get under the wire by deleting the overage, we all should have been informed of this loophole. Cut his balls off. What? You mean you can delete the overage? If so, then FFL owes me at least 150 posts for not informing me about the delete option. There seem to be some glitches in the system - some people seem to get to continue posting over the 50, others do not. Some get to post and additional post after they go over 50 by posting to the 'Post Count' thread. I say we do away with the Post Count - it's to much like the TMO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Myth of the Relaxation Response
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: with no control group you demonstrate nothing other than symptoms of ADHD were reduced, but you do not isolate the causal variable without a frigging control group. I've understood that the purpose of exploratory studies is to justify the next stage in research, a randomized controlled study. With that understanding, my beef with the TM research is *not* that it includes studies like the one you blast above, Peter, but that it has failed to deliver the more advanced research that needs to come next.
[FairfieldLife] Re: I find this ironic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk wrote: Massachusetts is arguably the most liberal state in the union. After all, it has gay marriage and sends the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank to Congress. That's why I find it ironic that it is the only state that I know of with a flat tax rate for income! Perhaps it's because I associate a flat tax with conservative/libertarian policy and progressive taxation with liberals...but don't you find it strange that they would have a flat tax? Interesting. I wasn't aware that Massachusetts had a flat tax, and I live just north in New Hampshire. I cannot contribute to the tax discussion, but as long as we're writing about ironies, get this one I heard from James Fallows on Fresh Air yesterday: China, a communist state, has no social safety net such as Medicare or Social Security. People are on their own in that regard!
[FairfieldLife] So ya want a miracle, eh?
I take the below as a serious in-your-face-take-that-science challenge to today's understandings about how mind can be found operative in existence's subtlest realms. Even if it is only a case of some sort of radiation between molecules that has yet to be measured by a refined measuring device yet to be invented, still, amazing that communication exists between non-living entities. I'm reminded of elements in alloys migrating to their own kind and separating into groupings instead of remaining associated with a different element. If molecules are talking from across the room, is this not a place to look if one is seeking the basis of intuition, transcendence, the astral? Inquiring minds want to know. Action at a distance -- Newton was boggled from the get go when he said, Hypotheses non fingo. -- I make no hypotheses, he said regarding how gravity works without apparent connectivity between masses. Edg http://tinyurl.com/9fc83y Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight Dna47_3_2 DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet. Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the amazing ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA's chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. Even so, the research published in ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals. In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The telepathic effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists. Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA, said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues. This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.
Re: [FairfieldLife] OM
Like many mantras, this one begins with Om. Om has no meaning, and its origins are lost in the mists of time... Probably the first mention of the esoteric syllabe 'Om' is found in the Mandukhya Upanishad (circa 800 AD), where it is said by Gaudapada to be a meditation symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandukya_Upanishad For example in the (non-Buddhist) Mandukya Upanishad, it is said: Om! — This syllable is this whole world. So, the mystic syllable 'Om' wasn't really 'lost' in the mists of time - instead it seems to have been invented by the Nath Siddhas, early Buddhist/Hindu alchemists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nath Is the syllable 'Om' mentioned in the Rig Veda, the Brahma Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, or in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? If 'Om' is the 'Pranava', why isn't 'Om' called the 'Omkara' by Badarayana or by Patanjali? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Sutras
[FairfieldLife] Re: OM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willy...@... wrote: Like many mantras, this one begins with Om. Om has no meaning, and its origins are lost in the mists of time... Probably the first mention of the esoteric syllabe 'Om' is found in the Mandukhya Upanishad (circa 800 AD), where it is said by Gaudapada to be a meditation symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandukya_Upanishad For example in the (non-Buddhist) Mandukya Upanishad, it is said: Om! â This syllable is this whole world. So, the mystic syllable 'Om' wasn't really 'lost' in the mists of time - instead it seems to have been invented by the Nath Siddhas, early Buddhist/Hindu alchemists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nath Is the syllable 'Om' mentioned in the Rig Veda, the Brahma Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, or in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? If 'Om' is the 'Pranava', why isn't 'Om' called the 'Omkara' by Badarayana or by Patanjali? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Sutras Now how does, 'with the will of God,' the creation start? MMY If you strike a bell it produces a hum-m-m-m. From that eternal silence a hum starts and this hum is called OM. MMY All this is OM, that hum, which is the first silent sound, first silent wave that starts from that silent ocean of unmanifested life. MMY It's the creative power of Mother Divine, MahaPrakriti, the Holy Spirit and the third aspect of the Divine. BillyG.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Myth of the Relaxation Response
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jan 6, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Rick Archer wrote: From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:10 PM To: David Orme-Johnson Subject: Myth of the Relaxation Response Dear Colleagues... (snore...) You know, I really wonder what crime DOJ committed in his last life, that he has to spend so much time in this one apologizing for TM, and rationalizing why so many quit. Must have been a doozy. Maybe he was the one who offed GD. Sal nah, the one that offed Guru Dev was you. btw, how's that relaxation response workin' for you? lol Hehe :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: I find this ironic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk wrote: Massachusetts is arguably the most liberal state in the union. After all, it has gay marriage and sends the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank to Congress. That's why I find it ironic that it is the only state that I know of with a flat tax rate for income! Perhaps it's because I associate a flat tax with conservative/libertarian policy and progressive taxation with liberals...but don't you find it strange that they would have a flat tax? Interesting. I wasn't aware that Massachusetts had a flat tax, and I live just north in New Hampshire. I cannot contribute to the tax discussion, but as long as we're writing about ironies, get this one I heard from James Fallows on Fresh Air yesterday: China, a communist state, has no social safety net such as Medicare or Social Security. People are on their own in that regard! We have a Chinese friend who runs an acupuncture centre nearby. She has been telling us similar tales of the hard-line attitude to social support in China by comparison to us Brits. Frankly we're commies by comparison! Oh hail Great Helmsman, Chairman Gordon Brown.
[FairfieldLife] They laughed for two hours?!
http://goldendome.org/transcript.htm#Henry%20Clark It is funny how it seems to work out like that. About 108 days ago, we decided to build two domes instead of one and decided what size they were, and every one told us that this normally would take at least two and half years to construct. Maybe six months to decide what dome company to find, eight months to do the drawings, and about a year and half worth of construction. So, about 95 days ago we went shopping for domes. We had done some before, and we found the dome company we liked. We went out, talked to them for about three hours, reviewed their structural analysis techniques, and told them we wanted to buy two domes, and we wanted them delivered in two months. And we would have all the foundations and all the columns ready for them to erect their dome. When we left, the structural engineer and president of the company sat in their office and laughed for two hours. And that is the truth.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: -snip- you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, -snip- so if we throw out the above definition, what are we left with wrt enlightenment? no one ever said that people could not disagree with the actions or speech of an enlightened person, or that the speech or actions of an enlightened person wouldn't rub someone like you the wrong way. how old are you anyway? haven't you figured out by now that - everything- done here on earth has BOTH a supporting and opposing effect, depending on the consciousness of the observer? you come across so childishly sometimes...its not all for Barry, all the time. there are about 6 billion other consciousnesses competing with your world view, and you know what-- some of what is said by enlightened folks is going to plainly make you uncomfortable. 6 words for you: grow up, and too fucking bad. OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that is what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if they weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; enlightenment then has no practical value. the purpose of doing transcendental meditation and other sadhana for the years and years is to reliably transcend, and then gradually integrate the pure nature of Being into activity. remember all those intro lectures you gave? rememeber how you were able to substantiate the content of those lectures with the daily practice of TM? or maybe it has been so long that your cemented and entrenched and arrogant ego has blinded you to the basic knowledge of life. 3 more words for you: get a clue, and stop spreading your dis-ease.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: -snip- you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, -snip- OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that is what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if they weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; enlightenment then has no practical value. In tune with the universe What does that even mean? How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? is TM the best way to get the universe on our side.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Hugo wrote: In tune with the universe What does that even mean? How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? Cmon, Hugo, haven't you ever heard the universe whisper, You're either with us or against us? If not, you're obviously not in tune with it! is TM the best way to get the universe on our side. Yes, The Universe regularly demands huge course fees and fake golden crowns. It's a known fact of physics. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the enlightened person's relationship to them. But then if you take it still further, you have to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to do anything against the laws of nature. What would that even mean, if the laws of nature are all-encompassing? It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit, as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught, and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Hugo wrote: In tune with the universe What does that even mean? How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? Cmon, Hugo, haven't you ever heard the universe whisper, You're either with us or against us? If not, you're obviously not in tune with it! This is the trouble with group prog, all I can hear is the guy next to me snoring. But no, I don't think I'm very evolved I'm afraid. No matter, I'm sure the universe will manage to struggle along without me somehow. is TM the best way to get the universe on our side. Yes, The Universe regularly demands huge course fees and fake golden crowns. It's a known fact of physics. There's a lecture in there somewhere. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What did you take with you from TM-Shiva
Longer mantras (e.g. the Great Compansion Mantra of Kwan Yin, the Surangama Sutra mantra,...etc) ime, are more suitable for chanting... In Buddhist practice, some longer mantras are called 'dharanis', but you don't really need to memorize long dharanis or sutras - a short tantric 'bija' mantra is all you need to get to you to the 'other shore'. That way, you don't need to be striving with all the memorization or learning how to pronounce fancy Sanskrit words with meaning. Just relax, feel your body as a whole, start the single bija and transcend - it's that simple. No need for a lot of fancy learning. When you reach the 'other shore', you don't need any bijas, mantras or sutras. When you reach the other shore, you wouldn't carry your boat around on your head, would you? Most householders don't have time for a lot of metaphysical understanding or intricate yoga practice - that is, unless you want your wife to start complaining about you neglecting her personal needs. Otherwise, you could become a wandering baba, a monk, or a recluse, and go live in a cave and devote all your time to meditation, fasting, tapas, and reading the sutras. Long mantras require lots of concentration which can be counter-productive - they might keep you on the conscious thinking level. Not only that, but you could get really mixed up and be chanting words dedicated to the devil, instead of the devas - who knows? In addition, Sanskrit words often found in long dharanis or sutras apparently don't have any transcending 'power' of their own, according to one of our resident tantrics, Bharat2. Words read in a book or in a booklet (or on the net) all need to be 'enlivened' by a tantric guru. Sanskrit words you read in a book don't have any 'shakti', so you would need to join a Sangha or a attend a Gurukula in order to get the dharani or sutra words to be effective. Maybe you could drive to Oakland CA and get some magic words from the 'Pilot Guru' - I don't know. But the simplest and easiest way to get to Nirvana is to use the TM 'bija' that you already paid for (save money on gasoline too, depending on where you live, like up in Deadwood, SD).
[FairfieldLife] Re: I find this ironic
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk wrote: Massachusetts is arguably the most liberal state in the union. After all, it has gay marriage and sends the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank to Congress. That's why I find it ironic that it is the only state that I know of with a flat tax rate for income! Perhaps it's because I associate a flat tax with conservative/libertarian policy and progressive taxation with liberals...but don't you find it strange that they would have a flat tax? Interesting. I wasn't aware that Massachusetts had a flat tax, and I live just north in New Hampshire. I cannot contribute to the tax discussion, but as long as we're writing about ironies, get this one I heard from James Fallows on Fresh Air yesterday: China, a communist state, has no social safety net such as Medicare or Social Security. People are on their own in that regard! ...and China is currently seriously debating putting Property Rights into their constitution. Property Rights are the cornerstone of capitalism and although the U.S. constitution has it, the Canadian one specifically and purposely left it out. And here's something else that I find interesting about China in this vein: remember the Tianamen Square Democracy Movement back 15 years or so when all those protesters were slaughtered by Chinese troops? Well, contrary certainly to what I was lead to believe by the media, the gripe that most of those protesters had wasn't so much that China wasn't free enough or didn't have enough democracy or freedom but, rather, that China was moving AWAY from communism! The protesters -- at least their leaders -- had more in common with Stalin and the Gang of Four than with Deng.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. But there is another course of action, you can assume that the enlightened person is no more or less likely to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else, is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in his life. From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who are you going to believe? An enlightened master or when I'd question some aspect of what they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it all boils down to for me, can you have greater knowledge of the world from inside than you can get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything at all* that baffles me. I think it comes from the same place that the ten commandments and all other religious edicts come from. No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say our morality is not our choice but from a higher power so we can't argue with it. Being on the side of nature herself must be a powerful driving force if you believe it. I don't of course, which doesn't mean I'm immoral just that I see nature as a bunch of stars and planets and apes on them trying to give meaning to something that doesn't give a toss about them. Remember the boxing day tsunami a few years ago? The local TM group discussed the karmic implications endlessly and asked questions at the monthly meeting on what the official TM position was. I wanted to explain about plate tectonics but was fascinated by the default position of eastern blame it all on being out of touch with nature adopted by everyone. It's weird is what it is. Beliefs like that should've been swept away when superior knowledge came along but MMY still kept on with his eastern trip. So how can he be said to be in touch with nature if he didn't teach the national science curriculum instead of SCI? This isn't off topic but fundamental to it. MMY and all enlightened types still teach what they believe and not some deeper knowledge. I reckon anyway. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the enlightened person's relationship to them. But then if you take it still further, you have to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to do anything against the laws of nature. What would that even mean, if the laws of nature are all-encompassing? I'm sure that there is both an inherited moral sense (that will vary from person to person) and one that has evolved due to necessity from living in large groups that gets passed from our parents. Most people see morals as more or less flexible if there is a good chance they won't get caught. Perhaps going against nature is ignoring that little voice in our heads that we are doing something wrong? It's all about social control. Someone we admire has a vision and tells us how to behave to get God or natures favour. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as enlightenment just that it isn't all it's cracked up to be. It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit, as I
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the enlightened person's relationship to them. But then if you take it still further, you have to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to do anything against the laws of nature. What would that even mean, if the laws of nature are all-encompassing? It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit, as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught, and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything at all* that baffles me. Me, too. I think it comes from the same place that the ten commandments and all other religious edicts come from. No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say our morality is not our choice but from a higher power so we can't argue with it. I think it comes from fear that the universe is chaotic and the wishful belief that it isn't. If one can postulate some God (even if one calls it by the euphemism Nature) that has a will, one can pretend that there really IS a Grand Plan behind all of this. Some seem to want this, or even need it. Me, I'm comfortable with it all being Grand Chaos. Being on the side of nature herself must be a powerful driving force if you believe it. It's also a great sales pitch if you can get others to believe it, or even to believe that you believe it. O senseless man, who could not possibly make a worm, but will make gods by the dozens. - Michel de Montaigne, Essays, 1580
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain) To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 11:25 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: -snip- you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, -snip- OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that is what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if they weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; enlightenment then has no practical value. In tune with the universe What does that even mean? How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? is TM the best way to get the universe on our side. Ha Ha! Hugo, you point out a few philosophical problems with the TM buzz words and slogans! Being in tune with natural law means you could be out of tune. But is it an all or nothing issue? Can you be partially in tune/out of tune? But what does that say about the part that is out of tune? Does it cease to exist? If it still exists is it some sort of anti-matter? Are there a separate group of out of tune natural laws? But aren't those natural laws too? Oh, it could go on forever like this! To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Black America's Moral Emmissary
Dr. King, McKinney and Obamaþ Glen Ford - glen.f...@blackagen daReport. com Wed 1/07/09 Black Agenda Report The global reputation of Black America has suffered greatly under George Bush, who deployed Black faces as fronts for his vicious brand of U.S. imperialism. Barack Obama's silence on the Israeli assault on Gaza suggests that his honeymoon with the planet won't last long. So who is to represent the progressive values of African Americans on the world stage? Thanks to Cynthia McKinney, millions of Arabs have been made aware of a different Black America, one that is not silent, like Barack Obama, in the face of a purposely inflicted human rights catastrophe. Dr. King and Obama represent opposing moral and political camps. The two days touch: Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday observance and Barack Obama's presidential inauguration, January 19 and 20, respectively. To many, the juxtaposition is self-evident confirmation of the intersection of the two men's missions on Earth. Dr. King's journey, which ended with his murder, and Obama's ascent to the presidency, are seen to merge as the dates approach to form a perfect, tragic-glorious symmetry - a 48-hour revelation. The coincidence of the calendar makes for good copy and grand sermons, but in fact reveals a great moral and political dissonance. It is true that there could have been no Obama presidency had Dr. King and the movement he sprang from not existed, but that simple fact of history does not amount to a King benediction from the grave for Obama's moral character and political policies. Indeed, Dr. King's life and words are indelible evidence that he and Obama represent opposing moral and political camps. Tens of millions of African Americans - who did not choose the little- known Obama to be their champion, but supported him near-universally at the polls once his candidacy had been made viable - will celebrate vicarious attainment of power when Obama is sworn in. Yet when confronted on Obama's political agenda, enough of which has been put in motion and otherwise made plain since Election Day, few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defense. Better than McCain doesn't cut it, anymore. Few Black Obama supporters can mount a cogent defense of his positions. When the New York Times describes the emerging Obama administration as center-right, there is not much for an honest progressive to defend - and most African Americans are progressive on economic issues and questions of war and peace. Beyond a ritual counting of the president-elect' s African American appointees, most African Americans seem oblivious to the political nature of his Cabinet, his policy pronouncements and shameful silences. More likely, they pretend to be oblivious so as not to lose that once-in-a-lifetime feeling that happened when the Black man won. Blacks who have taken on the task of defending Obama, often wind up revealing themselves as persons of little moral or political substance, in the process. New York's Dr. Leonard Jeffries is one of the more prominent Obamists, a self-styled Pan-Africanist. In my second debate involving Jeffries, in Baltimore, December 20 (the first was the week before, in Harlem), he repeated his mantra, that Blacks should study Obama-ology. I asked him to define this area of study. Obama-ology, said Jeffries, visibly exasperated by my questioning of the obvious, is the study of Obama. How he raised so much money...how he used the Internet Dr. Jeffries' response revealed his position to have no political or moral content. He genuflected before Obama because the candidate raised hundreds of millions of dollars (from whom and in return for what?) and created an Internet network (to what end, beyond Election Day?). Most importantly, Obama was a hero because he won. What else is there to know or say? None of the Obamites were even minimally capable of defending their guy's record. At the Harlem debate, an Obama defender kept shouting into her mic, Obama won! Black people have spoken! - as if any discussion of his political positions was extraneous, or racially subversive, on its face. The woman was a leader of the group that organized the debate, but like others in her organization clearly did not really want a debate. None of the Obamites were even minimally capable of defending their guy's record on the bailout, his retention of George Bush's defense secretary and plans to expand U.S. military manpower, his positioning of bankers at the controls of his new administration' s economic machinery, his support for AFRICOM, his key advisors' advocacy of humanitarian military intervention - on not one point did the Obama camp offer anything that could reasonably be called a defense, coherent or otherwise. It is not simply that the
[FairfieldLife] A fart tax for cows - humans next?
Dairy farmers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania face a new tax owing to the noxious gasses from the rear ends of their cows. As we all know, we are all going to hell in a handcart owing to our emissions of *toxic* CO2. However, farts being high in methane, and methane being a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, the powers-that-be in our brave new world are proposing a tax on dairy farmers: The rear end of a cow could become the next source of financial hardship for farmers. ... The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raised the concept in a recent report on possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. Those regulations also could be extended to small businesses, schools, hospitals and churches. http://tinyurl.com/8632bz Churches? Are the domes safe?
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy training becomes problematic. If you can only act in accord with a predetermined program, then that is not FREE! He seemed happy to just put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I post this.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the enlightened person's relationship to them. But then if you take it still further, you have to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to do anything against the laws of nature. What would that even mean, if the laws of nature are all-encompassing? It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit, as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught, and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves.
[FairfieldLife] the TM 'crap research'
Om. Good observation Pete, About TM crap research. 790 research papers `justifying' TM. A year ago the PR on TM was parading 300. Few months ago it was 600. Is probably 800 today now. If only half or even just a third of these papers weren't crap research as Pete points out here, they could still make their point. And sell the meditation that way honestly. Why pump the number when it includes such bad research as Main and Pete point out. With this kind of PR research and promotion, the inside TM-movement does kind of fulfill everyone's expectation now about TM, that they are essentially dishonest in their way they conduct business. Could the argument be okay or even better if they just had 250 good studies? The essential argument is still quite good along with enormous consequence about meditating vs. non-meditating at 250 good studies. Actually earth shaking and way utopian at that. 200 good studies. What is the point in blowing their credibility as they present it this way, `over the top'. Seems evidently worst than a diminishing return when they do this. Are they so tight within their cult-ure that they can't see or hear the ramification of their behavior in this way? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutp...@... wrote: Thirty-two students were in middle school grades, and 11 of these were diagnosed with ADHD. A randomized controlled study would have only 5-6 subjects in each group. Since this was an exploratory study, we chose to use a pretest-post test design with a single cohort. The subjects served as their own controls. Also known as a bullshit, oh excuse me, an exploratory study that does not demonstrate that TM reduces symptoms of ADHD. What the hell is wrong with you, David? Seriously, are you ignorant about research design or are you trying to fool people who know little about research? Again, with no control group you demonstrate nothing other than symptoms of ADHD were reduced, but you do not isolate the causal variable without a frigging control group. Rus wonder why people don't take TM research seriously. Well, here's a clear example of bullshit research that's touted as good research. Its crap research. Myth of the Relaxation Response From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...] Subject: Myth of the Relaxation Response Dear Colleagues, I have just posted Myth of the Relaxation Response, a paper I wrote some time ago, under the section on Comparison of Techniques. A link to it and the Abstract appear below. It documents that all techniques do not have the same acute or long term effects, but rather have effects that are tailored to what the specific techniques do. I plan to update it and send it to a journal, but since so many people ask me about this, I decided to post what I have for now. I also posted the new paper by Sarina Grosswald and colleagues on the effects of the TM program on ADHD. Issue: Are all techniques of relaxation and meditation the same? The Myth of the Relaxation Response by David Orme-Johnson, Ph.D. Abstract Although relaxation and meditation techniques have been hypothesized to produce the so-called relaxation response, a review of the literature finds that the acute physiological changes that occur during most techniques are not significantly different from uninstructed rest, sitting eyes closed. Compared to rest, some techniques produce specific acute changes resulting from their specific methodologies, such as reduced muscle tension in muscle relaxation techniques, reduced respiration according to the well known orienting response in techniques that require focused attention, and reflexive entrainment of the heart rate with the breath for techniques that control respiration. The relaxation response was originally modeled on the changes produced by the Transcendental Meditation® (TM®) technique, but some changes that occur during TM, such as increased cardiac output, skin conductance, and plasma adrenaline, are in the opposite direction of the relaxation response, and many other changes, such as increased cerebral blood flow and EEG coherence, are unpredicted by the relaxation response. With regard to clinical outcomes, randomized clinical trials that controlled for expectation, placebo, and other design features, as well as meta-analyses and reviews of over 790 studies, provide strong evidence that different techniques are not equivalent and they have specific effects. For example, it appears that muscular disorders are best treated with muscularly oriented methods, while autonomic dysfunction such as hypertension and migraine headaches are more
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
On Jan 7, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Peter wrote: In tune with the universe What does that even mean? How can you be out of tune with it? Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? is TM the best way to get the universe on our side. Ha Ha! Hugo, you point out a few philosophical problems with the TM buzz words and slogans! Being in tune with natural law means you could be out of tune. But is it an all or nothing issue? Can you be partially in tune/out of tune? But what does that say about the part that is out of tune? Does it cease to exist? If it still exists is it some sort of anti-matter? Are there a separate group of out of tune natural laws? But aren't those natural laws too? Oh, it could go on forever like this! Those are great questions, Peter, and I have the answers. And I'll give them to you, free of charge. All you have to do is send me a $1,000,000.00 free will donation and the secrets of the universe are yours! The Universe wants you to do this, trust me. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. But there is another course of action, you can assume that the enlightened person is no more or less likely to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else, is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in his life. You certainly can assume that. But my point is that you can believe the enlightened person is acting in accord with the laws of nature and still choose not to do what the person says--just as if you made the assumption you cite--without being inconsistent. In other words, it makes no difference what you believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing what the enlightened person says *just because* you consider them enlightened. From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who are you going to believe? An enlightened master or when I'd question some aspect of what they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it all boils down to for me, can you have greater knowledge of the world from inside than you can get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen. You can't be *sure*, certainly. But as with anybody who has more experience than you do in a certain area, you might give more weight to the advice of the enlightened person about how to become enlightened. By the same token, though, with regard to politics or economics and suchlike, you might well give *less* weight to the advice of the enlightened person if he or she hasn't spent much time studying worldly affairs. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. It's this idea that nature wants us to do *anything at all* that baffles me. I think it comes from the same place that the ten commandments and all other religious edicts come from. No, not God but *claimed* to come from God so we can say our morality is not our choice but from a higher power so we can't argue with it. As I understand the laws of nature notion, there's nothing you can't argue with because you cannot know what those laws are anyway. Not even the enlightened person knows--except that if the enlightened person is moved to do something, that must be what nature wants him or her to do. Gotta get off the computer. If I can, I'll come back to this after I return home to my own machine this weekend...
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy training becomes problematic. Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it. If you can only act in accord with a predetermined program, then that is not FREE! Yes, but that may be just semantics? I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's position as along those lines (I think!) He seemed happy to just put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I post this.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the enlightened person's relationship to them. But then if you take it still further, you have to wonder how it's possible for anybody ever to do anything against the laws of nature. What would that even mean, if the laws of nature are all-encompassing? It seems to me the whole laws of nature bit, as I suggested in an earlier post, is one of the least-well-understood elements of what MMY taught, and that he didn't do much of anything to clarify it--possibly because he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
You certainly can assume that. But my point is that you can believe the enlightened person is acting in accord with the laws of nature and still choose not to do what the person says--just as if you made the assumption you cite--without being inconsistent. In other words, it makes no difference what you believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing what the enlightened person says *just because* you consider them enlightened. Actually according to the Guru portions of the scriptures you must do what he says. According to this model no matter what you do in an unenlightened state your choice is not as perfect as the enlightened man's. This is one of the more philosophically bogus aspects of this teaching ethically. Being around Maharishi, he made it very clear that saying no was not an option if you wanted to stick around. acting in accordance with the desires of the master was really the only technique Maharishi himself claimed to have used to achieve his state. And it was the guiding principle of all staff's activities. Even famous guys like Elvis didn't keep people around him who said no. Guys who present themselves as enlightened masters don't give access to people who even give them a I'll think about it or not right now. This even happens in corporate cultures as we have seen from the problems in American companies like Enron and the mortgage industry. This represents the two different experiences: meditating without being in his organization, and anyone who spent time on a full time program. We do not appose was the mantra for the full-timers who wanted to stick around. And as middle-plus aged adults it is much easier to say I would never just do something because they told me to. But when you are in your 20's surrounded by people in their 30's and 40's taking direction was how you learned what your feelings were about what was right or wrong. Everything was kind of presented as a test of loyalty. I'm just glad that his group didn't swing too far into illegal activities beyond financial crimes that I was aware of. I would hope my upbringing would have allowed me to say no, but it would have been a problem because of the fallout. Perhaps some people who spent more time around him can give some examples of Maharishi telling people to do illegal things and what happened if they said no. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. But there is another course of action, you can assume that the enlightened person is no more or less likely to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else, is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in his life. You certainly can assume that. But my point is that you can believe the enlightened person is acting in accord with the laws of nature and still choose not to do what the person says--just as if you made the assumption you cite--without being inconsistent. In other words, it makes no difference what you believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing what the enlightened person says *just because* you consider them enlightened. From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying something is tantamount to it being beyond criticism. How many times have I heard TM teachers say but who are you going to believe? An enlightened master or when I'd question some aspect of what they consider supreme knowledge. Which is what it all boils down to for me, can you have greater knowledge of the world from inside than you can get empirically? No, on the evidence I've seen. You can't be *sure*, certainly. But as with anybody who has more experience than you do in a certain area, you might give more weight to the advice of the enlightened person about how
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy training becomes problematic. Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it. Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position. It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. People without training in philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds than theirs have been over this ground already. Studying philosophy gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge. It takes away some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to humans. (even ones who wear special clothes) If you can only act in accord with a predetermined program, then that is not FREE! Yes, but that may be just semantics? They are defined with opposite values. I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's position as along those lines (I think!) You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents one aspect of this argument. My point is that today we have the benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model. He seemed happy to just put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I post this.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make them wrong for not doing it. For all we know, nature might want the enlightened person to tell followers to do something it would be wrong for them to do, the whole point, from nature's perspective, being for them to realize it would be wrong and decline to do it. Being a follower of an enlightened person, in other words, does not relieve one of the responsibility for making one's own decisions about whether it's right or wrong for oneself to do something, including doing what the enlightened person asks. I never heard MMY make this point, nor any TM teacher make it, but it seems to me to follow inevitably from the rest of his teaching about the laws of nature and the
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: You certainly can assume that. But my point is that you can believe the enlightened person is acting in accord with the laws of nature and still choose not to do what the person says--just as if you made the assumption you cite--without being inconsistent. In other words, it makes no difference what you believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing what the enlightened person says *just because* you consider them enlightened. Actually according to the Guru portions of the scriptures you must do what he says. According to this model no matter what you do in an unenlightened state your choice is not as perfect as the enlightened man's. This is one of the more philosophically bogus aspects of this teaching ethically. Being around Maharishi, he made it very clear that saying no was not an option if you wanted to stick around. acting in accordance with the desires of the master was really the only technique Maharishi himself claimed to have used to achieve his state. And it was the guiding principle of all staff's activities. Even famous guys like Elvis didn't keep people around him who said no. Guys who present themselves as enlightened masters don't give access to people who even give them a I'll think about it or not right now. This even happens in corporate cultures as we have seen from the problems in American companies like Enron and the mortgage industry. This represents the two different experiences: meditating without being in his organization, and anyone who spent time on a full time program. Yes, this DOES seem to be a BIG deal. I'm trying to get clear in my head what it amounts to. The paradox of MMY as I see it was that on the one hand he taught (originally) a technique for householders, but to mass-duplicate (market) that technique he needed folks to adopt a non-householder lifestyle. Grizzly, bearded, Marxists would call this a contradiction. (Or dialectic which has less negative connotations) We do not appose was the mantra for the full-timers who wanted to stick around. And as middle-plus aged adults it is much easier to say I would never just do something because they told me to. But when you are in your 20's surrounded by people in their 30's and 40's taking direction was how you learned what your feelings were about what was right or wrong. Everything was kind of presented as a test of loyalty. I'm just glad that his group didn't swing too far into illegal activities beyond financial crimes that I was aware of. I would hope my upbringing would have allowed me to say no, but it would have been a problem because of the fallout. Perhaps some people who spent more time around him can give some examples of Maharishi telling people to do illegal things and what happened if they said no. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. But there is another course of action, you can assume that the enlightened person is no more or less likely to be wrong than anyone else and, like everyone else, is acting from a standpoint of what he has learned in his life. You certainly can assume that. But my point is that you can believe the enlightened person is acting in accord with the laws of nature and still choose not to do what the person says--just as if you made the assumption you cite--without being inconsistent. In other words, it makes no difference what you believe; you don't get extra karmic credit for doing what the enlightened person says *just because* you consider them enlightened. From my long experience with TMers, MMY saying
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. Paradoxically, it isn't free will if the individual attributes authorship of the choice of action to him/herself.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy training becomes problematic. Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it. Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position. It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. Agreed. But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever). This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies). Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita). People without training in philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds than theirs have been over this ground already. Studying philosophy gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge. It takes away some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to humans. (even ones who wear special clothes) If you can only act in accord with a predetermined program, then that is not FREE! Yes, but that may be just semantics? They are defined with opposite values. I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's position as along those lines (I think!) You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents one aspect of this argument. My point is that today we have the benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model. He seemed happy to just put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I post this.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved in such a situation. One is the enlightened person saying, Do this, and the other is the folks listening to him saying, OK, I'll do that. It's entirely possible that the first was right action and the second wrong action. For all we know, right action for those listening to the enlightened person would be to say, No, I ain't gonna do that. Refusing to do it would not imply that the enlightened person was wrong in the sense of being in tune with the laws of nature for having told them to do whatever it was, nor would it necessarily make
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: snip It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic?
[FairfieldLife] Coulter vs. the counter-Coulters
Coulter vs. the Counter-Coulters By L. Brent Bozell III CNSNews.com | Wednesday, January 07, 2009 Ann Coulter's new book Guilty is out and two things are certain: It will surely be another best-seller, and she will once again drive the Left bonkers. No institution will be more offended than the national press. Prepare to witness their meltdown. The Drudge Report caused a firestorm when anonymous NBC insiders leaked the word that Coulter had been banned for life from that network. CBS featured her on The Early Show and a combative Harry Smith tried to insult her to the extreme. He called her goofy, simplistic, sophomoric, and a whiner. You should have a cross, he said dismissively. You should put yourself up on a cross. Why are they so upset? The so-called objective media clearly feel threatened because they are the very liberals Coulter is attacking. If they weren't liberals, none of her mockery of liberals would bother them. Oh, they might not appreciate her style, as some conservatives don't. But they wouldn't have pitched debates inside their walls about how they will savage her in interviews and I defy the networks to deny this or how they would remove her from their airwaves altogether. Those rumored bans have been demanded by the leftist lobbyists for the Censorship Doctrine people who say they oppose conservative misinformation, but clearly want conservatives tossed from the radio and TV airwaves before misinformation or just plain conservative thought spills out. They have pressured the networks to stop helping Coulter sell books. Freedom of speech is truly a dangerous concept when conservatives exercise it. But liberals who claim to oppose inflammatory rhetoric on television when it comes from conservatives have no problem with uncivil liberalism. Or 100 percent hate-filled left-wing character assassination. Take NBC, which could not look sillier if it ever seriously banned Coulter for being hyperbolic, when vicious, hyperbolic liberals (Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews) dominate MSNBC. It's easy to run down a list of inflammatory liberals who are welcomed on the TV morning shows. Start with Kitty Kelley's wild investigative books on the Reagans or the Bushes. Or Michael Moore's kooky conspiracy theories. Or Al Franken suggesting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should be executed over Plamegate. (NBC's Matt Lauer and his off-camera crew laughed at that.) Or recall Bill Maher on his HBO show in 2007 suggesting Arianna Huffington shouldn't ban commenters on her website wishing Dick Cheney had died in a terrorist attack in Afghanistan. That's a funny joke, Maher said. If this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that? He added that Cheney's death by suicide bomber might be a public service: I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact. Harry Smith hosted Maher on CBS just months ago on his faith-mocking movie Religulous and didn't say one discouraging word to him about his caustic remarks about Cheney or his hateful anti-Christian bigotry. Not one word. But when Ann Coulter speaks, the brass knuckles come out. In 2007, Coulter was heavily criticized for joking that she couldn't talk about John Edwards, since an ABC actor was forced to apologize for saying faggot at the Golden Globes. Liberals were furious. Coulter responded by saying next time, she'd echo Bill Maher and just wish Edwards died in a terrorist attack. Elizabeth Edwards then denounced Coulter for suggesting she wanted her husband dead. Harry Smith invited Mrs. Edwards on CBS, offered her brief softballs and let her verbally whack Coulter with a bat. Smith is an enormous hypocrite. He completely ignored vicious remarks by Mrs. Edwards just days before, in accepting a Rage for Justice award, that the Bush administration was waging a class war that compared to slaughters in Darfur: The White House has led the charge against working people, in their own class war. The late, great Molly Ivins once wrote: `If there was class warfare, that war was long over. And it was a massacre a genocide to which there have been words of acknowledgment, as there have in Darfur, but as with Darfur, no meaningful action.' But when Ann Coulter comes on the set with Smith, the gloves come off. Ann Coulter's liberal-bashing columns and books and television appearances are fun for conservatives, simply because there's nothing funnier for the right that witnessing CBS putting up on its own screen a Coulter quote about Ted Kennedy and CBS: Kennedy may be a drunken slob, but unlike CBS News anchors, he is not certifiably insane. Call Coulter outrageous, call her a bomb-thrower, even state she goes beyond the pale of civility, if that's your read. But do not assign that label to Coulter and then present your on-air love and kisses and giggles to all the public leftist hate-spewing that far
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever). This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies). Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita). Hmmm. I thought that the message of the Bhagavad-Gita was, Kill the people the Big Blue Guy tells you to kill. Even if he's fictional he knows better than you do. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
authfriend wrote: How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic? Edg: Words, words, words. Are we really still battling to be the ultimate definer of words? Like: resolvable. What COULDN'T that mean? My contentment that something has been resolved may irk another person who has differing standards, so then it becomes a matter of which person KNOWS what a resolution is, and surely, if anything, these be muddy waters, matey. A kid hit by a car might accept an ice cream cone as a full measure of atonement from the driver, right? Has the concept, only resolvable in UC, any chance at all to trigger the same meaning in even the most harmonious minds? Extremely doubtful, right? So why bother except as a sorta contest of philosophical stamina? Whoever quits the discussion first loses and that's it? Pretty stupid, right? Yet, isn't that commonly seen here? I so seldom see anyone agreeing with anyone about anything here unless the folks were already in agreement, and the exchange is really only a mutual admiration dealeebopper. Do any of you folks out there actually, you know, feel fulfilled when your post gets zero or negative or troll replies? Probably not. And if one of your buddies gives you a high five, that can hardly be considered validation when those who oppose are still on the stump with megaphones. Why post except as an exercise in thinking aloud, and if so, why get bothered by the lack of harmony with others who have various IQs, histories, morals, etc.? I have been s guilty of being serious here that it would be a joke if I tried to toss even a pebble at anyone for this gimme-closure addiction. Yet how each and all long for closure, completion, agreement, harmony, peace. Or, at least we say that we long so, but the assertion becomes suspect the more incidents repeatedly show our pissy knee jerk natures that arise when the heat in the kitchen drives us from intimacy and out into our parlors, basements, attics where other discussions can be safely handled while the real issues lay untouched in the kitchen. So, here's my nod, my touching my hat's brim to the likes of Curtis (there are several here who are) for his ability to dig deeper than most into another's mind without a cynical and off-putting rancor. Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions really are by comparing our POVs with his. Thanks, C. Ya feel fatherly most days -- hope you feel that that's a compliment. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic? I don't believe that this it is a meaningful concept to claim that UC resolves philosophical issues like free will and determinism. We might as well replace UC with magic. When you achieve a magical state of mind then there will be no problems and the opposing concepts of free will and determinism will be resolved. Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that discussing these issues provides. The point is to understand that thinking about topics like this is not simple. Claiming to have solved it with a state of consciousness is like claiming that your calculator has already solved all math problems so we should eliminate math from the classrooms. It is good for humans to go deeply into issues so they realize that we live in a world of mystery rather than a simple world that can be summed up with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we find in the world of duality are resolved because we will be living in a world of Unity and everything we do will be in accordance with all the laws of nature and all the trees will have leaves made out of that gummie bear material but they will taste like Pina Coladas and they wont pull your freak'n filling out when you eat them.
[FairfieldLife] Moral Reasoning for the unreasoning
Not trusting the TMO or even myself because of my two years of med school (I didn't go on because I just couldn't take being around sick people) and loads of science training, I decided that the experiences I've been having over the years might just be the result of neurological or mental defect. I have amazingly good insurance so I was able to get a psych evaluation and a neurological evaluation (spent 5 days and nights hooked up to EEG probes in the Austin Diagnostic Center). The diagnosis: a strangely cheery but otherwise healthy dude. So I allow myself (like I have a choice?) to flow with the experiences I've been having for the past couple of years. With the massive ego that grows more each day and the realization that I know God, that I look out and see myself looking back at me, I think I can understand how Maharishi felt about right action and his ability to do no wrong. I feel that way. As I type this, the typing isn't me except of course all is me. It's something flowing from the Gap through me. At times I can perceive the thoughts arising from little impulses/seeds, fleshing out and finally becoming action, emotion, thoughts, words. I feel that I can do no wrong. But added to that is the very strong desire to do only that which is right, only that which is helpful, speak only that which is sweet. If I didn't have this very strong urge to be humble, to be a servant to others I could see where I could be a real royal pain in the ass. I sometimes worry about becoming a psychopath because though my compassion and empathy and love for others grows each day, so does my confidence in my thoughts, words and deeds. Man, it seems to me that if you don't have your morals and ethics and empathy in place once you get to this stage of Self/self confidence, you can do some real damage. Where does my self-confidence and innate feeling that I am every doing the right thing come from? Maybe stress, maybe the forces of evil and darkness. It doesn't feel that way. And it doesn't matter. I'm on autopilot and the programming of the autopilot does its thing.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies). Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita). That was interesting. Thanks for advancing this discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. If anyone else remembers this chime in. This is one of those examples where Maharishi's lack of philosophy training becomes problematic. Beg to differ... what training falsifies that idea? I don't see it. Training in the contradictory dilemmas caused by taking each position. It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. Agreed. But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever). This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies). Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita). People without training in philosophy tend to have an unwarranted confidence in their philosophical arguments without out knowing that more brilliant minds than theirs have been over this ground already. Studying philosophy gives you a sense of humility about human knowledge. It takes away some of the glib summations of perennial questions which have no definite solutions because much of what it deals with is unknown to humans. (even ones who wear special clothes) If you can only act in accord with a predetermined program, then that is not FREE! Yes, but that may be just semantics? They are defined with opposite values. I suppose if you followed Spinoza, you might argue that there is no free will. But you could (perhaps!) argue that the deep realisation of that fact in itself changes your behaviour. Which creates a sort of paradox I suppose (as in quantum mechanics where the act of observation changes the nature of the observed). I think I see MMY's position as along those lines (I think!) You lost me when you used the physics poetry but Spinoza represents one aspect of this argument. My point is that today we have the benefit of both arguments for human free will and determinism and now educate people can't make a glib statement that it is resolved, which Maharishi attempted to do with his higher states model. He seemed happy to just put out contradictory statements as profundities instead of admitting that the philosophical problem of free will and determinism is not solved by being in some super state of consciousness. It remains a contradiction and humans really don't know if they are acting freely or are the puppets of intergalactic children who just got the new Earthlings Wii program for their planet's advanced wireless computer game's Milky Way edition. (I am sooo going back on my meds after I post this.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip As long as you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, then there is NO POSSIBILITY of that organization admitting publicly that anything it did in the past *at the direction of its supposedly enlightened leader* could have been anything less than perfect. Just ain't gonna happen. As I understand what MMY taught (and he isn't the only one), this is a misinterpretation. There are two courses of action involved
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote: But if MMY was a philosopher, wouldn't we have to say his position was (officially): Try to obtain enlightenment; but in the meantime follow the dictats of your religion (or whatever). This is because (philosophically speaking) he was an ethical pessimist: the reasoning mind is inadequate to figure out real moral dilemmas. MMY follows Plato (Socrates): good acts are based on good knowledge (bad acts are based on ignorance, not evil tendencies). Without Knowledge, your buggered frankly. Good Intentions are of no use. (The message of the Bhagavad Gita). Hmmm. I thought that the message of the Bhagavad-Gita was, Kill the people the Big Blue Guy tells you to kill. Even if he's fictional he knows better than you do. :-) Er...it was? Dang! My bad.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Reinvent Yourself!
Now this is an ad, IMO. Arhata, I would suggest being more discrete like just having a link to your website as part of your signature or if someone asked then explaining what you offer and a link. This however, if I were a moderator, looks more blatant. Of course others might say there is TMO spam here too but the TMO does not post directly to FFL and their promotions posted as a topic of discussion. Arhata Osho wrote: Reinvent Yourself! Stuck being You? Is it really YOU? Time to find out who you really are!? It may be a surprise that the ‘real you’ is much different than who most everyone gets enmeshed in. Reinventing is a technique that might lead to dropping the attached beliefs that one lugs around without real examination. I have found that people are very much a product of what their occupation is! Little do people realize that they become human clones of what they do in life that is structured, particularly in a ‘routine job’, be it a logger, teacher, nurse, computer programmer, lawyer, engineer, retiree, on and on. Few occupations create an environment with the flexibility to be who one REALLY IS. Of course, race, religion, nationality, status, etc., program people into ‘boxes’. Dropping my ‘Wall Street’ clothes for a ‘surfin LA’ persona that became a total reinvention of the ‘outer’ has been a tremendous continuing experience! Consciously changing allows the dropping of the ‘cloaking’ of who you really are not. To merge into a ‘suit’ of other people’s expectations of protocol, usually becomes a path to lose touch with who you really are deep down. Living with other people’s expectations or, one’s attached to yourself, is buying into a complete facade and waste of a precious life. Locking oneself into the illusionary outer and inner is fear driven. An explosion of the inner emotional, mental, and spiritual self leads to the truth that is what we are all here to find. Time is always ‘today’ inspite of the illusion of whether one is 10 or 100. Reinventing oneself for discovery or morphing into the true self, is divine. Yesss Self Love Center Est. 1991 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 310 880-2020 Port Townsend, Washington USA Copyright January 7, 2009 http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/ To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions really are by comparing our POVs with his. That is a nice reputation to try to live up to Edg. This is my goal: to articulate where I stand on issues and compare them to whoever is expressing theirs. Sometimes I fall short of this ambition and just appear dickish in discussion. But I am not expecting perfection from myself. I know too well who I am dealing with at this end of any conversation! The ability to discuss topics without putting the discussor on trial as a person isn't always easy, but I think some good strides have been made on FFL towards that ideal. I certainly appreciate a place where I can articulate my thoughts in writing about complex topics. It really isn't about the movement for me at all at this stage. Being intellectually stimulated enough to write regularly is reason enough for me to check in daily. Thanks for the kind intentions behind your post Edg. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: authfriend wrote: How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic? Edg: Words, words, words. Are we really still battling to be the ultimate definer of words? Like: resolvable. What COULDN'T that mean? My contentment that something has been resolved may irk another person who has differing standards, so then it becomes a matter of which person KNOWS what a resolution is, and surely, if anything, these be muddy waters, matey. A kid hit by a car might accept an ice cream cone as a full measure of atonement from the driver, right? Has the concept, only resolvable in UC, any chance at all to trigger the same meaning in even the most harmonious minds? Extremely doubtful, right? So why bother except as a sorta contest of philosophical stamina? Whoever quits the discussion first loses and that's it? Pretty stupid, right? Yet, isn't that commonly seen here? I so seldom see anyone agreeing with anyone about anything here unless the folks were already in agreement, and the exchange is really only a mutual admiration dealeebopper. Do any of you folks out there actually, you know, feel fulfilled when your post gets zero or negative or troll replies? Probably not. And if one of your buddies gives you a high five, that can hardly be considered validation when those who oppose are still on the stump with megaphones. Why post except as an exercise in thinking aloud, and if so, why get bothered by the lack of harmony with others who have various IQs, histories, morals, etc.? I have been s guilty of being serious here that it would be a joke if I tried to toss even a pebble at anyone for this gimme-closure addiction. Yet how each and all long for closure, completion, agreement, harmony, peace. Or, at least we say that we long so, but the assertion becomes suspect the more incidents repeatedly show our pissy knee jerk natures that arise when the heat in the kitchen drives us from intimacy and out into our parlors, basements, attics where other discussions can be safely handled while the real issues lay untouched in the kitchen. So, here's my nod, my touching my hat's brim to the likes of Curtis (there are several here who are) for his ability to dig deeper than most into another's mind without a cynical and off-putting rancor. Not a chance in hell that Curtis can define resolved, but at least when he tries, we all get closer to what our own private definitions really are by comparing our POVs with his. Thanks, C. Ya feel fatherly most days -- hope you feel that that's a compliment. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Reinvent Yourself!
An ad? That's a new one! Now this is an ad, IMO. Arhata, I would suggest being more discrete like just having a link to your website as part of your signature or if someone asked then explaining what you offer and a link. This however, if I were a moderator, looks more blatant. Of course others might say there is TMO spam here too but the TMO does not post directly to FFL and their promotions posted as a topic of discussion. Arhata Osho wrote: Reinvent Yourself! Stuck being You? Is it really YOU? Time to find out who you really are!? It may be a surprise that the ‘real you’ is much different than who most everyone gets enmeshed in. Reinventing is a technique that might lead to dropping the attached beliefs that one lugs around without real examination. I have found that people are very much a product of what their occupation is! Little do people realize that they become human clones of what they do in life that is structured, particularly in a ‘routine job’, be it a logger, teacher, nurse, computer programmer, lawyer, engineer, retiree, on and on. Few occupations create an environment with the flexibility to be who one REALLY IS. Of course, race, religion, nationality, status, etc., program people into ‘boxes’. Dropping my ‘Wall Street’ clothes for a ‘surfin LA’ persona that became a total reinvention of the ‘outer’ has been a tremendous continuing experience! Consciously changing allows the dropping of the ‘cloaking’ of who you really are not. To merge into a ‘suit’ of other people’s expectations of protocol, usually becomes a path to lose touch with who you really are deep down. Living with other people’s expectations or, one’s attached to yourself, is buying into a complete facade and waste of a precious life. Locking oneself into the illusionary outer and inner is fear driven. An explosion of the inner emotional, mental, and spiritual self leads to the truth that is what we are all here to find. Time is always ‘today’ inspite of the illusion of whether one is 10 or 100. Reinventing oneself for discovery or morphing into the true self, is divine. Yesss Self Love Center Est. 1991 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 310 880-2020 Port Townsend, Washington USA Copyright January 7, 2009 http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/ To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, arhatafreespe...@... wrote: An ad? That's a new one! I'm with Bhairitu on this one, his feedback was valid. I'm glad you are happier surfing then whatever you did on Wall Street. That doesn't mean that I am in some box just because you finally really GOT what was written on your Celestial Seasoning's Hibiscus tea box. Reinvent yourself as a non spammer and create discussions. Most of the posters here have spent enough time with your counterculture message to not need a lecture about it. Some of us already know who we REALLY are. It isn't that big a deal. Now this is an ad, IMO. Arhata, I would suggest being more discrete like just having a link to your website as part of your signature or if someone asked then explaining what you offer and a link. This however, if I were a moderator, looks more blatant. Of course others might say there is TMO spam here too but the TMO does not post directly to FFL and their promotions posted as a topic of discussion. Arhata Osho wrote: Reinvent Yourself! Stuck being You? Is it really YOU? Time to find out who you really are!? It may be a surprise that the ¡real you¢ is much different than who most everyone gets enmeshed in. Reinventing is a technique that might lead to dropping the attached beliefs that one lugs around without real examination. I have found that people are very much a product of what their occupation is! Little do people realize that they become human clones of what they do in life that is structured, particularly in a ¡routine job¢, be it a logger, teacher, nurse, computer programmer, lawyer, engineer, retiree, on and on. Few occupations create an environment with the flexibility to be who one REALLY IS. Of course, race, religion, nationality, status, etc., program people into ¡boxes¢. Dropping my ¡Wall Street¢ clothes for a ¡surfin LA¢ persona that became a total reinvention of the ¡outer¢ has been a tremendous continuing experience! Consciously changing allows the dropping of the ¡cloaking¢ of who you really are not. To merge into a ¡suit¢ of other people¢s expectations of protocol, usually becomes a path to lose touch with who you really are deep down. Living with other people¢s expectations or, one¢s attached to yourself, is buying into a complete facade and waste of a precious life. Locking oneself into the illusionary outer and inner is fear driven. An explosion of the inner emotional, mental, and spiritual self leads to the truth that is what we are all here to find. Time is always ¡today¢ inspite of the illusion of whether one is 10 or 100. Reinventing oneself for discovery or morphing into the true self, is divine. Yesss Self Love Center Est. 1991 arhatafreespe...@... 310 880-2020 Port Townsend, Washington USA Copyright January 7, 2009 http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/ To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
Bizarre response! Most in this group know who they are beyond polarity? That's an interesting speculation! Then why respond as such? Is there judgment here? Dialog would better find a more accurate interpretation. Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: An ad? That's a new one! I'm with Bhairitu on this one, his feedback was valid. I'm glad you are happier surfing then whatever you did on Wall Street. That doesn't mean that I am in some box just because you finally really GOT what was written on your Celestial Seasoning's Hibiscus tea box. Reinvent yourself as a non spammer and create discussions. Most of the posters here have spent enough time with your counterculture message to not need a lecture about it. Some of us already know who we REALLY are. It isn't that big a deal. Now this is an ad, IMO. Arhata, I would suggest being more discrete like just having a link to your website as part of your signature or if someone asked then explaining what you offer and a link. This however, if I were a moderator, looks more blatant. Of course others might say there is TMO spam here too but the TMO does not post directly to FFL and their promotions posted as a topic of discussion. Arhata Osho wrote: Reinvent Yourself! Stuck being You? Is it really YOU? Time to find out who you really are!? It may be a surprise that the ¡real you¢ is much different than who most everyone gets enmeshed in. Reinventing is a technique that might lead to dropping the attached beliefs that one lugs around without real examination. I have found that people are very much a product of what their occupation is! Little do people realize that they become human clones of what they do in life that is structured, particularly in a ¡routine job¢, be it a logger, teacher, nurse, computer programmer, lawyer, engineer, retiree, on and on. Few occupations create an environment with the flexibility to be who one REALLY IS. Of course, race, religion, nationality, status, etc., program people into ¡boxes¢. Dropping my ¡Wall Street¢ clothes for a ¡surfin LA¢ persona that became a total reinvention of the ¡outer¢ has been a tremendous continuing experience! Consciously changing allows the dropping of the ¡cloaking¢ of who you really are not. To merge into a ¡suit¢ of other people¢s expectations of protocol, usually becomes a path to lose touch with who you really are deep down. Living with other people¢s expectations or, one¢s attached to yourself, is buying into a complete facade and waste of a precious life. Locking oneself into the illusionary outer and inner is fear driven. An explosion of the inner emotional, mental, and spiritual self leads to the truth that is what we are all here to find. Time is always ¡today¢ inspite of the illusion of whether one is 10 or 100. Reinventing oneself for discovery or morphing into the true self, is divine. Yesss Self Love Center Est. 1991 ArhataFreeSpeech@ ... 310 880-2020 Port Townsend, Washington USA Copyright January 7, 2009 http://www.freedomo fspeech.netfirms .com/ - - -- To subscribe, send a message to: FairfieldLife- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com Or go to: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/FairfieldL ife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
curtisdeltablues wrote: Some of us already know who we REALLY are. It isn't that big a deal. Curtis, you're talking about the spectrum called personality, right? Not something beyond the physical, right? Word schmerds, eh? If you have the time, I would dwell with a serious intent on your definitions of: Real Know And: why it isn't such a big deal to have such clarity. To me, if your statement is taken to be utterly true, then you have found truths of incredible worth. I must admit that I am so different from even last year's version of me, that, whew, I really have no grasp of what I might be next -- it seems to depend on the matrix so much more than on anything I might (don't laugh) plan for myself. Yet, you and others pull off being quite certain who they are/will be/have been with such an aura of conviction that my above POV is shaken. Am I in denial about knowing my real self? Questions: when did you finally become you? when did you finally conclude that you had finally concluded about who you are? how does change impact your certainties? aging must mellow all so how does that jibe witcha? do you have axioms that have not been shaken for years, decades, a lifetime? Oh, too much to ask of you, but if you have the time Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Questions: when did you finally become you? when did you finally conclude that you had finally concluded about who you are? how does change impact your certainties? aging must mellow all so how does that jibe witcha? do you have axioms that have not been shaken for years, decades, a lifetime? I'm not Curtis, but as axioms go I'm going to have to vote for, Don't eat the yellow snow. It's really hard to go wrong with that one.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic? I don't believe that this it is a meaningful concept to claim that UC resolves philosophical issues like free will and determinism. What I was getting at is that the question itself is not answered by saying 'the guy is in UC' is meaningless, or tautological. If there *is* a nondual state of consciousness in which the question is resolved, *of course* it wouldn't resolve the issue from a dualistic state of consciousness. So you aren't really saying anything; that isn't a valid criticism. It's like saying you can't get the full effect of three dimensions from a two-dimensional drawing. You don't have any problem understanding that that statement is tautological, because you know that both three dimensions and two dimensions exist and what they look like. You wouldn't take the statement as a valid criticism of the claim that things look different in three dimensions. snip Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that discussing these issues provides. The point is to understand that thinking about topics like this is not simple. Claiming to have solved it with a state of consciousness is like claiming that your calculator has already solved all math problems so we should eliminate math from the classrooms. More like we should all get calculators and learn to use them. But in the case of the free will-determinism issue, that there is claimed to be a resolution in UC doesn't preclude engaging with the apparent contradiction on the dualistic level, using the most sophisticated philosophical tools, if only to arrive at the realization that it *isn't* resolvable on that level. In fact, if you *don't* do that, then you don't have any basis for curiosity about whether there is or is not a further level on which it *is* resolved, and how such a disparity between states of consciousness might exist. It is good for humans to go deeply into issues so they realize that we live in a world of mystery rather than a simple world that can be summed up with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we find in the world of duality are resolved because we will be living in a world of Unity and everything we do will be in accordance with all the laws of nature Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more* mysterious statement than that! A world which appears to be fraught with intractable contradictions but in which a perspective is possible that resolves them seems to me to be a much more interesting and complex world than one in which they stay intractable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: Some of us already know who we REALLY are. It isn't that big a deal. Curtis, you're talking about the spectrum called personality, right? Not something beyond the physical, right? Isn't our personality and mind beyond the physical? They arises from our physical brain's activity but it is a wonderful nonphysical reality. Word schmerds, eh? If you have the time, I would dwell with a serious intent on your definitions of: Real This is context dependent as a concept. It is meaningful in context. If I am imagining a green dinosaur it is not real in the physical world, but I can tell a story about it and it will be a real part of that story. Discussing this kind of concept outside its concept is a quality of some spiritual discussions that I am not into. Know Again, more useful in context. I am not a complete epistemological skeptic, I believe we do know some things. But if you challenge knowledge in an abstract way you lose it's pragmatic value, which for me is its most important value. OMG knowledge leads to action, flashback central! I have been most focused on building myself a practical epistemology and don't claim to understand ultimate values in life like being and no-being. I know my limitations and am comfortable with them. And: why it isn't such a big deal to have such clarity. To me, if your statement is taken to be utterly true, then you have found truths of incredible worth. In my 20's I had more confusion and doubts about myself. Now I am more comfortable through living with myself in different situations. I think getting older IS profound but not in some cosmic sense. My process of living with immigrants and having friends from different cultures made me feel more at home in the world and less insecure about how much of it I had experienced. I must admit that I am so different from even last year's version of me, that, whew, I really have no grasp of what I might be next -- it seems to depend on the matrix so much more than on anything I might (don't laugh) plan for myself. Yet, you and others pull off being quite certain who they are/will be/have been with such an aura of conviction that my above POV is shaken. Am I in denial about knowing my real self? It probably depends on your definition for real self. My opinions about things change, but who I am stays constant. I can clarify and change certain values but my processes for doing that is similar. I can re-invent myself in some ways, but it is all done from the core of who I am. Questions: when did you finally become you? when did you finally conclude that you had finally concluded about who you are? how does change impact your certainties? aging must mellow all so how does that jibe witcha? do you have axioms that have not been shaken for years, decades, a lifetime? I believe that the decade after I left the movement was the decade I gained self-actualization in Maslow's sense of the term. I don't know exactly when since I don't consider it static. But I definitely noticed that at some point I was dealing with life from a better place internally, with more self-knowledge and more knowledge of how life works. I became more comfortable with all the stuff I don't know and the ambiguities of life. I would also throw in the death of a loved one as a pivotal moment in my consciousness. It changed me in a very positive way. Certainties is not a word I would use. I would call it a functional mental tool kit. With good evidence I change my POV regularly. I think aging makes me more comfortable with ambiguity and a bit less harshly judgmental of other people's choices. But I know I can still be a prick so I keep an eye on myself. Oh, too much to ask of you, but if you have the time It is a privilege to be asked such questions. Having someone give a shit about your POV across the digital abyss is a wonderful thing so thanks! Now back at you brother, what is your take on your own questions? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: -snip- you are talking about an organization that believes to its core that an enlightened being is in tune with the laws of nature and that such an enlightened being cannot possibly perform wrong action, -snip- OF COURSE an enlightened person is in tune with the universe. that is what makes them enlightened; that is the practical definition. if they weren't in tune with the universe, they wouldn't be enlightened; enlightenment then has no practical value. In tune with the universe What does that even mean? having desires fulfilled as effortlessly as possible, for example. i was talking with a friend about this, how we can undertake an action to suit one purpose, and the next day for example it turns out we needed to do such a thing in order for another desire to be fulfilled. there are myriad ways in which this works. when you ask what does that even mean, all i can suggest is keep doing TM and it will become self evident. How can you be out of tune with it? being miserable is a great indicator that things are seriously out of phase. Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural. is TM the best way to get the universe on our side. i don't know if it the best way, since that is unquantifiable, but i do think it is reliable, mechanical and effective, yes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moral Reasoning for the unreasoning
Thanks for this. I like to read these first-hand experiences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: [snip] With the massive ego that grows more each day and the realization that I know God, that I look out and see myself looking back at me, I think I can understand how Maharishi felt about right action and his ability to do no wrong. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Support a Maharishi Vedic Pandit
https://vedicpandits.org/Video/INTRO9/Creating_World_Peace.html
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it shows. Interesting response. You put your finger on where the line is drawn between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not. Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more* mysterious statement than that! A world which appears to be fraught with intractable contradictions but in which a perspective is possible that resolves them seems to me to be a much more interesting and complex world than one in which they stay intractable. And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please keep in touch! I am just not inclined to believe that it is possible but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know. None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give me me confidence in this claim. I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction needs resolving. It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip It is an unresolved issue in philosophy. It is mostly used as a way to train philosophical reasoning but the question itself is not answered by saying the guy is in UC. How could a question that is resolved only in UC be resolvable in philosophy when philosophy itself is dualistic? I don't believe that this it is a meaningful concept to claim that UC resolves philosophical issues like free will and determinism. What I was getting at is that the question itself is not answered by saying 'the guy is in UC' is meaningless, or tautological. If there *is* a nondual state of consciousness in which the question is resolved, *of course* it wouldn't resolve the issue from a dualistic state of consciousness. So you aren't really saying anything; that isn't a valid criticism. It's like saying you can't get the full effect of three dimensions from a two-dimensional drawing. You don't have any problem understanding that that statement is tautological, because you know that both three dimensions and two dimensions exist and what they look like. You wouldn't take the statement as a valid criticism of the claim that things look different in three dimensions. snip Plus it misses the intellectual exercise that discussing these issues provides. The point is to understand that thinking about topics like this is not simple. Claiming to have solved it with a state of consciousness is like claiming that your calculator has already solved all math problems so we should eliminate math from the classrooms. More like we should all get calculators and learn to use them. But in the case of the free will-determinism issue, that there is claimed to be a resolution in UC doesn't preclude engaging with the apparent contradiction on the dualistic level, using the most sophisticated philosophical tools, if only to arrive at the realization that it *isn't* resolvable on that level. In fact, if you *don't* do that, then you don't have any basis for curiosity about whether there is or is not a further level on which it *is* resolved, and how such a disparity between states of consciousness might exist. It is good for humans to go deeply into issues so they realize that we live in a world of mystery rather than a simple world that can be summed up with a phrase like: In UC the contradictions we find in the world of duality are resolved because we will be living in a world of Unity and everything we do will be in accordance with all the laws of nature Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more* mysterious statement than that! A world which appears to be fraught with intractable contradictions but in which a perspective is possible that resolves them seems to me to be a much more interesting and complex world than one in which they stay intractable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reinvent Yourself!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Bizarre response! Thanks, I hope it was entertaining. Most in this group know who they are beyond polarity? Yes. That's an interesting speculation! Then why respond as such? Because you were preaching to the choir. Is there judgment here? Yes. Dialog would better find a more accurate interpretation. Wh? Arhata God bless you. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: An ad? That's a new one! I'm with Bhairitu on this one, his feedback was valid. I'm glad you are happier surfing then whatever you did on Wall Street. That doesn't mean that I am in some box just because you finally really GOT what was written on your Celestial Seasoning's Hibiscus tea box. Reinvent yourself as a non spammer and create discussions. Most of the posters here have spent enough time with your counterculture message to not need a lecture about it. Some of us already know who we REALLY are. It isn't that big a deal. Now this is an ad, IMO. Arhata, I would suggest being more discrete like just having a link to your website as part of your signature or if someone asked then explaining what you offer and a link. This however, if I were a moderator, looks more blatant. Of course others might say there is TMO spam here too but the TMO does not post directly to FFL and their promotions posted as a topic of discussion. Arhata Osho wrote: Reinvent Yourself! Stuck being You? Is it really YOU? Time to find out who you really are!? It may be a surprise that the ¡real you¢ is much different than who most everyone gets enmeshed in. Reinventing is a technique that might lead to dropping the attached beliefs that one lugs around without real examination. I have found that people are very much a product of what their occupation is! Little do people realize that they become human clones of what they do in life that is structured, particularly in a ¡routine job¢, be it a logger, teacher, nurse, computer programmer, lawyer, engineer, retiree, on and on. Few occupations create an environment with the flexibility to be who one REALLY IS. Of course, race, religion, nationality, status, etc., program people into ¡boxes¢. Dropping my ¡Wall Street¢ clothes for a ¡surfin LA¢ persona that became a total reinvention of the ¡outer¢ has been a tremendous continuing experience! Consciously changing allows the dropping of the ¡cloaking¢ of who you really are not. To merge into a ¡suit¢ of other people¢s expectations of protocol, usually becomes a path to lose touch with who you really are deep down. Living with other people¢s expectations or, one¢s attached to yourself, is buying into a complete facade and waste of a precious life. Locking oneself into the illusionary outer and inner is fear driven. An explosion of the inner emotional, mental, and spiritual self leads to the truth that is what we are all here to find. Time is always ¡today¢ inspite of the illusion of whether one is 10 or 100. Reinventing oneself for discovery or morphing into the true self, is divine. Yesss Self Love Center Est. 1991 ArhataFreeSpeech@ ... 310 880-2020 Port Townsend, Washington USA Copyright January 7, 2009 http://www.freedomo fspeech.netfirms .com/ - - -- To subscribe, send a message to: FairfieldLife- subscribe@ yahoogroups. com Or go to: http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/FairfieldL ife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? **snip unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural. **snip to end The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a Taoist fashion. A way of describing the absence of that support is turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, but at a different scale than that of the individual and, consequently, it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration. But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the flow is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction of turbulence. And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries all along with it regardless of what we do or don't do. It seems likely that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed circumstances of our lives. Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor make all the difference, but the larger current carries everything along towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of our small projects and concerns. **
[FairfieldLife] Re: Support a Maharishi Vedic Pandit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, michael vedamer...@... wrote: https://vedicpandits.org/Video/INTRO9/Creating_World_Peace.html Do I get a photo and letter from my pundit every month telling me how he is doing?
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 03 00:00:00 2009 End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 10 00:00:00 2009 562 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jan 07 23:25:27 2009 53 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 43 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 37 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 37 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com 33 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com 29 authfriend jst...@panix.com 26 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 25 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 22 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 21 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 20 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 19 Richard Williams willy...@yahoo.com 18 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 16 Patrick Gillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 14 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 14 Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 12 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com 11 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net 11 gullible fool ffl...@yahoo.com 11 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 10 mainstream20016 mainstream20...@yahoo.com 8 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 8 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk 8 Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com 6 Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com 6 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 5 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 5 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com 4 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com 3 Stu buttspli...@gmail.com 3 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com 3 Marek Reavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.net 2 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 2 pranamoocher bh...@hotmail.com 2 boo_lives boo_li...@yahoo.com 2 Mark Kincaid m.kinc...@mchsi.com 2 John jr_...@yahoo.com 1 michael vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 menkemeyer menkeme...@yahoo.com 1 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com 1 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 bettyblue109 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 apprillia_s_d apprilli...@gmail.com 1 Janet Luise janlu...@gmail.com 1 Dasuki A. dasuki...@yahoo.com Posters: 46 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] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? **snip unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural. **snip to end The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a Taoist fashion. A way of describing the absence of that support is turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, but at a different scale than that of the individual and, consequently, it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration. But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the flow is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction of turbulence. yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, like how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current without thinking twice about it. funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other hand have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully integrate it into the airstream of life. And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries all along with it regardless of what we do or don't do. It seems likely that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed circumstances of our lives. agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. and yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an isolated mote of dust, fwiw. Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor make all the difference, but the larger current carries everything along towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of our small projects and concerns. **
[FairfieldLife] Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Very weird! Is it representative of this group who I thought was combined of people at least somewhat more evolved than the normal. Very strange!! Ego's? Arhata http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/ --- On Thu, 1/8/09, I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com wrote: From: I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com Subject: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group To: arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 12:03 AM -Inline Attachment Follows- If you want to participate in FFL, you are of course welcome like everybody else. But the spam you send to the group is not appreciated.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
The easy, instantaneous in-flight correction of a bird in response to wind turbulence is a wonderful analogy, and thanks for that. It would seem to me that very few animals (if any, but perhaps some of the large primate cousins) besides humans have the sense of separation that characterizes human experience; and, consequently, there is no need for realization of what already is -- that's already where they're at. That's why the opportunity to spend time with animals, and particularly wild animals whose exposure to humans is limited, is so valuable in a kind of mentoring way. My own experience, like yours, isn't one of isolation, and there's a natural sense of belonging and completeness. I don't presume to understand where this is all going, but I have trust in the system and circumstances that have created me that it will be fine. Thanks again. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? **snip unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural. **snip to end The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a Taoist fashion. A way of describing the absence of that support is turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, but at a different scale than that of the individual and, consequently, it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration. But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the flow is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction of turbulence. yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, like how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current without thinking twice about it. funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other hand have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully integrate it into the airstream of life. And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries all along with it regardless of what we do or don't do. It seems likely that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed circumstances of our lives. agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. and yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an isolated mote of dust, fwiw. Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor make all the difference, but the larger current carries everything along towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of our small projects and concerns. **
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self-promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
[FairfieldLife] From the NYTimes, 1.7.09
800 bus atheist ad campaign in London. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07london.html
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: The easy, instantaneous in-flight correction of a bird in response to wind turbulence is a wonderful analogy, and thanks for that. It would seem to me that very few animals (if any, but perhaps some of the large primate cousins) besides humans have the sense of separation that characterizes human experience; and, consequently, there is no need for realization of what already is -- that's already where they're at. That's why the opportunity to spend time with animals, and particularly wild animals whose exposure to humans is limited, is so valuable in a kind of mentoring way. yes, sometimes i will watch a bird or a squirrel in my backyard and just marvel silently at their grace. or even a lion (on tv) as it stalks and kills its prey- seems cruel and awful in a way, and yet, there aren't any 7-11s on the savanah :). even the opportunity we have as humans to ponder and seek enlightenment is as a result of us furiously using technology in order to seperate ourselves from nature, and in so doing afford ourselves the luxury of spare time and comfort, to then find our way back from our isolation from the natural world, in order to reintegrate ourselves into the universal order and flow. quite a fascinating game we find ourselves playing. a game nonetheless with tangible benefits, and the only one imo worth playing with these tiny lives we are afforded. both beautiful and incomprehensible. My own experience, like yours, isn't one of isolation, and there's a natural sense of belonging and completeness. I don't presume to understand where this is all going, but I have trust in the system and circumstances that have created me that it will be fine. me too! Thanks again. thank you also. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote:[in reply to:] Do you think that the universe has a way that we have to behave and then it approves and gives us nature support? **snip unmistakably. however most people understand that to be a code of behavior or a set of rules to follow. it is dynamic. if you have ever heard sports people talking about being in the flow, it is like that only all the time. being awkward and miserable isn't natural. **snip to end The whole idea of support of nature makes sense to me in a Taoist fashion. A way of describing the absence of that support is turbulence as opposed to flow; however, turbulence is also flow, but at a different scale than that of the individual and, consequently, it is experienced as some degree of incoherence and frustration. But the interruption of the individual's sense of being in the flow is merely the inability of the individual to immediately or gracefully adjust his or her position relative to the introduction of turbulence. yes, i agree with this, and this i experience as the difference between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. change in life is inevitable, even welcome, and the degree to which we instantly adjust and integrate with change makes all of the difference, like how a bird adjust to a shifting or increased wind current without thinking twice about it. funny how animals are automatically enlightened in this way, yet have far fewer capabilities than us humans. humans on the other hand have a far larger toolbox and yet must work hard to fully integrate it into the airstream of life. And the larger flow of life, the great tidal force within which we find ourselves operating, follows its own direction and carries all along with it regardless of what we do or don't do. It seems likely that our individual actions are no more than Brownian motion that have no larger consequences beyond the very circumscribed circumstances of our lives. agreed that one life is like one thread in a massive tapestry. and yet, i feel much more of the overall design than i do an isolated mote of dust, fwiw. Within the small boat that we share with whatever shipmates we've picked up along the way, civility and affection and good humor make all the difference, but the larger current carries everything along towards its own ends that likely have no consideration or care of our small projects and concerns. **
[FairfieldLife] OT: Good news on the Prostate Cancer Front
Some of you can't be reached any other way then blasting out to the whole group. Please pardon me if you have no interest in this post. My friend the citizen sidha appears to have been doing his program right or having me in IA (where things magically appear) has helped get some results. First and foremost, my friend has found a medical champion in Austin. It's a friend of a friend of mine. A shrink. Her opinion is that getting the biopsy was a bad idea and has suggested that my friend dissociate himself from the previous gang of urologists. My friend has scheduled an appointment in a month with an oncology group in Austin. This group is in touch with the Mayo Clinic (I guess he won't be able hold the mayo), MD Anderson (in Houston), Sloan Kettering and Johns Hopkins. They know who is running which clinical trial and are willing to allow my friend to seek alternate therapy. Which alternate therapy he's already started. He's taking the supplements already suggested. He's also waiting for the arrival of substances which are in phase II clinical trial but can be gotten OTC. Many of these substances have some nice write ups in PubMed. It comes to pass that there is a vast international support system for men with prostate cancer, since we're talking about men who often have considerable means and of course doctors and even oncologists get prostate cancer. So if you want to try something, post a request, you'll get an email or a phone call of someone who can get the stuff for you and blast you out a list of which clinics are doing clinical trials on the stuff. The reason my friend has scheduled an appointment in a month is that prostate cancer at what appears to be his stage is slow growing and he'd like to see if he can make some progress before he goes for opinions from oncologists. I want to thank everyone who's helped me out here. You've been a godsend. I won't be bothering y'all about this matter anymore because my buddy and I now have loads of people around the world to commune with about the advance du jour.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self-promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@yahoo.comwrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata Salaam Ah Lakum, Arhata, Me things you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I privately complained to our moderators because of the canned oversized HTML format, the catchy subject and then the realization that this is yet another pamphlet. Feel free if our gracious hosts will allow you to put these tracts into the Files section. Otherwise, except for an occasional promo from a member, what's prized on FFL is a URL to something that might be of interest to the group or your opinion on something. The views in your pamplets /might/ get someone nervous (but who knows?) if someone actually read one of them. But your pamplets are not read. Please go read the posting guidelines and abide by them or scoot. Ah Lakum Salaam
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question Arhata, This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not one of this group's qualities. I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy. I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like we're just folks. Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would be more than interested in hearing about your experiences. This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me? Curtis why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self-promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: OT: Good news on the Prostate Cancer Front
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: Some of you can't be reached any other way then blasting out to the whole group. Please pardon me if you have no interest in this post. My friend the citizen sidha appears to have been doing his program right or having me in IA (where things magically appear) has helped get some results. First and foremost, my friend has found a medical champion in Austin. It's a friend of a friend of mine. A shrink. Her opinion is that getting the biopsy was a bad idea and has suggested that my friend dissociate himself from the previous gang of urologists. My friend has scheduled an appointment in a month with an oncology group in Austin. This group is in touch with the Mayo Clinic (I guess he won't be able hold the mayo), MD Anderson (in Houston), Sloan Kettering and Johns Hopkins. They know who is running which clinical trial and are willing to allow my friend to seek alternate therapy. Which alternate therapy he's already started. He's taking the supplements already suggested. He's also waiting for the arrival of substances which are in phase II clinical trial but can be gotten OTC. Many of these substances have some nice write ups in PubMed. It comes to pass that there is a vast international support system for men with prostate cancer, since we're talking about men who often have considerable means and of course doctors and even oncologists get prostate cancer. So if you want to try something, post a request, you'll get an email or a phone call of someone who can get the stuff for you and blast you out a list of which clinics are doing clinical trials on the stuff. The reason my friend has scheduled an appointment in a month is that prostate cancer at what appears to be his stage is slow growing and he'd like to see if he can make some progress before he goes for opinions from oncologists. I want to thank everyone who's helped me out here. You've been a godsend. I won't be bothering y'all about this matter anymore because my buddy and I now have loads of people around the world to commune with about the advance du jour. This is a bit confusing. Why would the shrink know better than the urologists? What does in touch with Mayo, MD Anderson et. al. mean? If I were him I would go straight to MD Anderson. But I'm not him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: OM
Is the syllable 'Om' mentioned in the Rig Veda, the Brahma Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, or in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras? BillyG wrote: All this is OM, that hum, which is the first silent sound, first silent wave that starts from that silent ocean of unmanifested life. MMY According to the Marshy, the transcendental process is pure mechanics - there's no 'God' in it. If there was a 'God' in TM, then it would be a religion, not TM, Billy. When a bell is struck, it makes a sound - that's physics, not metaphysics.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I remember MMY talking about free will he said we have free will when we are no longer a football of life and our will becomes the will of God. The enlightened person's will becomes Thy will be done, and this is right action. Paradoxically, it isn't free will if the individual attributes authorship of the choice of action to him/herself. Exactly. In a state of simple form of awareness, witnessing, there is a quiet place in the heart, a feeling of flowing in the now of just being, and not doing anything (no attribution or authorship of action). Maharishi described this as, Established in Being, performing action. In the here and now of just being perfectly surrendered, experience perfect action. Maharishi attuned himself to Guru Dev, not so much on the level of action but on the level of feeling. His one pointed devotion and perfect surrender purified his heart. His absolute love unified with Guru Dev's love. I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since 1988. She is a great Saint and was Maharishi. Her life is immersed in absolute service and surrender to everyone just as Maharishi was to Guru Dev and to us. Ammachi is tireless in uplifting the consciousness of humanity just and Maharishi was. Service, surrender, devotion and humility seems to go with the territory if one is enlightened and living spontaneous right. To whom much is given, much is expected.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since 1988. Must find infidel. Must report infidel to Development of Consciousness office. Infidel has not been assimilated. Infidel is dangerous to the collective. Infidel must be assimilated. It is for the good of the collective. There will exist nothing but the collective.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: I feel blessed to have received hugs from Ammachi every year since 1988. Must find infidel. Must report infidel to Development of Consciousness office. Infidel has not been assimilated. Infidel is dangerous to the collective. Infidel must be assimilated. It is for the good of the collective. There will exist nothing but the collective. [siren] Arrest me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Curtis
The judgments you make below are fine, but they do befuddle dialog
a bit. My writing is NOT intended as anything but what I feel to espress..
I love to comment on others if I see the opportunity
Anyone who sees it as other has made their own misinterpretation of any
intentions. You see it one way and another sees it otherwise.
For 14 years, I've connected with millions of people of all ages, nationalities,
religions, states of mind and on and on with a mulititude of purposes including
promoting 'free speech' in the world. The biggest block to free speech is not
the government, but the citizens who are immersed in judgment.
It would create a very different outlook if you were to explore my simple
website
and read the topics that interest you. My underlying main interest is
'relationships
as a spiritual path {love path} which is the No. 1 path of interest in the
Western
world today. All my writing is an invitation to dialog and from my discerning
experience that I've researched mainly from 'experience' for over 30 years.
People love it and hate it. There is always the click button - no doubt many
on this
site are open - that I know from year of experience. If this is not an open
spiritual/consciousness site, then it's perhaps not in the groups interest.
Arhata
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing
this for 15 years
with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this
judgment is
a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked
insecurities and that's
good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's
intent to question
Arhata,
This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna
get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not
one of this group's qualities.
I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy.
I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer
reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you
need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be
interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like
we're just folks.
Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on
Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would
be more than interested in hearing about your experiences.
This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you
show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me?
Curtis
why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange
characterization
as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now.
Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A
dialog is
good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2
writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any
thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a
spiritual/conscious
life.
Shalom,
Arhata
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com,
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Maharishi Group:
Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages,
the last 2 being 'Old People' and
'Reinvent Yourself'
If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group,
and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you
should count me out or, offer an explanation.
Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self-promoting,
spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and
this is not the place to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespe...@... wrote:
Curtis
The judgments you make below are fine, but they do befuddle dialog
a bit.
Asking you to tell your story befuddles you?
My writing is NOT intended as anything but what I feel to espress
So you are not trying to communicate with me, gotcha.
I love to comment on others if I see the opportunity
Anyone who sees it as other has made their own misinterpretation of
any intentions.
Your intentions are for you to clarify. You got some feedback on how
you were coming across.
You see it one way and another sees it otherwise.
For 14 years, I've connected with millions of people of all ages,
nationalities, religions, states of mind and on and on with a
mulititude of purposes including promoting 'free speech' in the
world. The biggest block to free speech is not
the government, but the citizens who are immersed in judgment.
You mean people judging if you are being interesting or boring? Yeah,
that judgment probably isn't going anywhere, you might have to live
with that one.
It would create a very different outlook if you were to explore my
simple website and read the topics that interest you.
I told you I did read your Website, are you reading what I am writing?
My underlying main interest is 'relationships
as a spiritual path {love path} which is the No. 1 path of interest
in the Western world today.
Relationships with whom?
All my writing is an invitation to dialog and from my discerning
experience that I've researched mainly from 'experience' for over 30
years.
Dude we've all been around for a while and have lots of experiences.
I think you are gunna have to focus up a bit if you want to get some
message across.
People love it and hate it.
You haven't gotten either end of intensity out of me yet. I'm still
in befuddlement.
, There is always the click button.
No, really? OMG, there IS a click button! This is gunna save me sooo
much time!
- no doubt many on this site are open
How many. let's see hands...almost everyone!
- that I know from year of experience. If this is not an open
spiritual/consciousness site, then it's perhaps not in the groups
interest.
Oh I get it, if we don't dig what you write it is because we are not
on an open spiritual/consciousness site. Very slick! Personally I
blame Rick for that, he started this site and so far people seem VERY
resistant to people like yourself with 30 years of experiences backing
what they feel to express and not promoting anything at all except
relationships and free speech.
Just one question, should there be free speech? That sounds kind of
like some new fangled concept. I can't see that catching on.
Arhata
Gesundheit!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing
this for 15 years
with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this
judgment is
a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked
insecurities and that's
good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's
intent to question
Arhata,
This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna
get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not
one of this group's qualities.
I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy.
I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer
reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you
need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be
interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like
we're just folks.
Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on
Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would
be more than interested in hearing about your experiences.
This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you
show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me?
Curtis
why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange
characterization
as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am
now.
Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A
dialog is
good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2
writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any
thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a
spiritual/conscious
life.
Shalom,
Arhata
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com,
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Maharishi Group:
Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages,
the last 2 being 'Old People' and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:21 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Arhata Gesundheit! LOL! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Sal Zeit Gesundheit!! On Jan 7, 2009, at 10:21 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Arhata Gesundheit! LOL! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Moral Reasoning for the unreasoning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: Not trusting the TMO or even myself because of my two years of med school (I didn't go on because I just couldn't take being around sick people) and loads of science training, I decided that the experiences I've been having over the years might just be the result of neurological or mental defect. I have amazingly good insurance so I was able to get a psych evaluation and a neurological evaluation (spent 5 days and nights hooked up to EEG probes in the Austin Diagnostic Center). The diagnosis: a strangely cheery but otherwise healthy dude. So I allow myself (like I have a choice?) to flow with the experiences I've been having for the past couple of years. With the massive ego that grows more each day and the realization that I know God, that I look out and see myself looking back at me, I think I can understand how Maharishi felt about right action and his ability to do no wrong. I feel that way. As I type this, the typing isn't me except of course all is me. It's something flowing from the Gap through me. At times I can perceive the thoughts arising from little impulses/seeds, fleshing out and finally becoming action, emotion, thoughts, words. I feel that I can do no wrong. But added to that is the very strong desire to do only that which is right, only that which is helpful, speak only that which is sweet. If I didn't have this very strong urge to be humble, to be a servant to others I could see where I could be a real royal pain in the ass. I sometimes worry about becoming a psychopath because though my compassion and empathy and love for others grows each day, so does my confidence in my thoughts, words and deeds. Man, it seems to me that if you don't have your morals and ethics and empathy in place once you get to this stage of Self/self confidence, you can do some real damage. Where does my self-confidence and innate feeling that I am every doing the right thing come from? Maybe stress, maybe the forces of evil and darkness. It doesn't feel that way. And it doesn't matter. I'm on autopilot and the programming of the autopilot does its thing. Be careful out there, hon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--Venice Beach, the Rose Cafe, circa early 70's; the place where I first about Swami Muktananda. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespeech@ wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question Arhata, This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not one of this group's qualities. I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy. I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like we're just folks. Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would be more than interested in hearing about your experiences. This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me? Curtis why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self- promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Curtis
It's ok if you're judgmental, but I haven't the time to go round and round
about misinterpretations that give you away. I'm sure you mean to be
productive in what you
write and if others feel so or not, let them speak up. I only dialog from
the heart and awareness as much as possible. The question remains to me
'are you representative of the general thinking here'?
Arhata
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Curtis
The judgments you make below are fine, but they do befuddle dialog
a bit.
Asking you to tell your story befuddles you?
My writing is NOT intended as anything but what I feel to espress
So you are not trying to communicate with me, gotcha.
I love to comment on others if I see the opportunity
Anyone who sees it as other has made their own misinterpretation of
any intentions.
Your intentions are for you to clarify. You got some feedback on how
you were coming across.
You see it one way and another sees it otherwise.
For 14 years, I've connected with millions of people of all ages,
nationalities, religions, states of mind and on and on with a
mulititude of purposes including promoting 'free speech' in the
world. The biggest block to free speech is not
the government, but the citizens who are immersed in judgment.
You mean people judging if you are being interesting or boring? Yeah,
that judgment probably isn't going anywhere, you might have to live
with that one.
It would create a very different outlook if you were to explore my
simple website and read the topics that interest you.
I told you I did read your Website, are you reading what I am writing?
My underlying main interest is 'relationships
as a spiritual path {love path} which is the No. 1 path of interest
in the Western world today.
Relationships with whom?
All my writing is an invitation to dialog and from my discerning
experience that I've researched mainly from 'experience' for over 30
years.
Dude we've all been around for a while and have lots of experiences.
I think you are gunna have to focus up a bit if you want to get some
message across.
People love it and hate it.
You haven't gotten either end of intensity out of me yet. I'm still
in befuddlement.
, There is always the click button.
No, really? OMG, there IS a click button! This is gunna save me sooo
much time!
- no doubt many on this site are open
How many. let's see hands...almost everyone!
- that I know from year of experience. If this is not an open
spiritual/conscious ness site, then it's perhaps not in the groups
interest.
Oh I get it, if we don't dig what you write it is because we are not
on an open spiritual/conscious ness site. Very slick! Personally I
blame Rick for that, he started this site and so far people seem VERY
resistant to people like yourself with 30 years of experiences backing
what they feel to express and not promoting anything at all except
relationships and free speech.
Just one question, should there be free speech? That sounds kind of
like some new fangled concept. I can't see that catching on.
Arhata
Gesundheit!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing
this for 15 years
with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this
judgment is
a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked
insecurities and that's
good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's
intent to question
Arhata,
This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna
get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not
one of this group's qualities.
I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy.
I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer
reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you
need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be
interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like
we're just folks.
Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on
Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would
be more than interested in hearing about your experiences.
This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you
show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me?
Curtis
why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange
characterization
as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am
now.
Self promoting is not a sin, but have no
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it shows. Interesting response. You put your finger on where the line is drawn between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not. Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more* mysterious statement than that! A world which appears to be fraught with intractable contradictions but in which a perspective is possible that resolves them seems to me to be a much more interesting and complex world than one in which they stay intractable. And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please keep in touch! I am just not inclined to believe that it is possible but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know. None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give me me confidence in this claim. I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction needs resolving. It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems to be. We don't want to die and in be gone, dead forever and forgotten. We create myths of after life, of reincarnation, of enlightenment with magical powers. But no matter how many science fiction books you read, how many religious texts, how many unexplained experiences you might have, and how many stories you hear, you still don't know what happens when you die. And you don't know if becoming one with nature simply means turning into dirt. Making your peace with this is enlightenment. And the universe and its mysteries go on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--Sorry - first learned about Muktananda. The Mahareeshee uses the term God; but Willytex says people can't use that term. Lakshmanjoo uses it. Swami Lakshmanjoo on karma: The first difference, therefore, between Kashmir Saivism and Vedanta is in their different understanding of karmayoga. This difference, as you have seen, is very great, with the Vedantins believing that karmayoga means doing all actions without asking for their reward and our Kashmir Saivism teaching that yoga in action means doing all actions while maintaining a breakless contemplation of God. ...p. 103,Kashmir Shaivism, the Secret Supreme. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: --Venice Beach, the Rose Cafe, circa early 70's; the place where I first about Swami Muktananda. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespeech@ wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question Arhata, This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not one of this group's qualities. I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy. I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might be interesting. How about putting down the signs and just talking like we're just folks. Tell us about how you got from your daddy's knee to standing around on Venice Beach spreading a message to strangers. I'm a busker and would be more than interested in hearing about your experiences. This can be a friendly place and people will give you an ear if you show up as yourself behind your message. Ya feel me? Curtis why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self- promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Ethical behavior (was Re: spirituality spot found in brain)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I know you have given this topic some deep thought Judy and it shows. Interesting response. You put your finger on where the line is drawn between believing that such a non-dual state is possible and not. Gee, I have a hard time imagining a *more* mysterious statement than that! A world which appears to be fraught with intractable contradictions but in which a perspective is possible that resolves them seems to me to be a much more interesting and complex world than one in which they stay intractable. And for people willing to test the theory all I can say is please keep in touch! I am just not inclined to believe that it is possible but I am the first to cop to the limits of what I know. None of my reference experiences in and out of the movement give me me confidence in this claim. I'm not sure I feel that this contradiction needs resolving. It seems fine to me just as the mystery it seems to be. We don't want to die and in be gone, dead forever and forgotten. Speak for yourself, please. We create myths of after life, of reincarnation, of enlightenment with magical powers. But no matter how many science fiction books you read, how many religious texts, how many unexplained experiences you might have, and how many stories you hear, you still don't know what happens when you die. And you don't know if becoming one with nature simply means turning into dirt. Making your peace with this is enlightenment. Or not, as the case may be. But what happens after death wasn't part of what Curtis and I were talking about in any case. And the universe and its mysteries go on. BTW, magical powers (above) is a weasel term meant to denigrate the notion of siddhis. Kinda funny how you don't seem to want to include the possibility of siddhis among the universe's mysteries, innit?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Curtis Telling me I'm not wanted here is fine. No need to say 'scoot'! It's not exactly the way the Mararishi would respond. You may be representative of consciousness here because of a collective 'belief system' that engenders fear that cloaks as judgment. I get who you are, I'm just into dialog and not judgment. Very interesting that everyone here, as you say, is of one mind. The two essays -'Old People and Reinvent Yourself' hit truth somewhere but truth and denial- fear, are strangers. It's quite amusing that I've never encountered someone 'banned' from a group that wasn't obviously 'abusive'. Thank you for the confirmation of the Zen Stick's value. Arhata On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Arhata Osho arhatafreespeech@ yahoo.com wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata Salaam Ah Lakum, Arhata, Me things you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I privately complained to our moderators because of the canned oversized HTML format, the catchy subject and then the realization that this is yet another pamphlet. Feel free if our gracious hosts will allow you to put these tracts into the Files section. Otherwise, except for an occasional promo from a member, what's prized on FFL is a URL to something that might be of interest to the group or your opinion on something. The views in your pamplets /might/ get someone nervous (but who knows?) if someone actually read one of them. But your pamplets are not read. Please go read the posting guidelines and abide by them or scoot. Ah Lakum Salaam
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
hi arhata, i just read some of your billboards on your website, to see what all the fuss is about. what i read were some basic statements about mindfulness and witnessing. what i read were attempts by you to wake people up to a new way of seeing the world. what i read were various essays about facets of mindfulness, such as greater enjoyment through being present and aware. i get all of that. now i want to know more about you. what was your journey to get to this point, where you have come to share what you have learned spiritually, and why you do it? i am much more interested in knowing something about you. otherwise all of your billboards might as well be mildly interesting greeting cards. like for example, you write about a guy you knew who was into meditating and noticing the world. now he is into his job and house and he has bills to pay. are those mutually exclusive ways of being? are you saying that living a fully engaged life in society, paying bills, having a mortgage, raising a family, using credit cards, etc. is antithetical or opposed to living a purely spiritual life, enraptured every moment by the cosmic wonder and immensity of the world within our incomprehensible universe? are material possessions signs to you that i for example, cannot live as a deeply spiritual person, gaining my enlightenment daily, deeply immersed in the profound cosmic wave of life? have at it please. i'm listening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespe...@... wrote:
Curtis
It's ok if you're judgmental, but I haven't the time to go round and
round about misinterpretations that give you away.
Again with the putdowns. You have a great rapport technique.
I'm sure you mean to be productive in what you
write and if others feel so or not, let them speak up.
They already have, I am the village idiot here.
I only dialog from the heart and awareness as much as possible.
And so do I, what a coincidence.
The question remains to me 'are you representative of the general
thinking here'?
No, I am unlike all the other people who will hang on your every word
with ZERO judgment. You should focus on their overwhelmingly positive
feedback...
Arhata
I've run out of jokes here.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Curtis
The judgments you make below are fine, but they do befuddle dialog
a bit.
Asking you to tell your story befuddles you?
My writing is NOT intended as anything but what I feel to espress
So you are not trying to communicate with me, gotcha.
I love to comment on others if I see the opportunity
Anyone who sees it as other has made their own misinterpretation of
any intentions.
Your intentions are for you to clarify. You got some feedback on how
you were coming across.
You see it one way and another sees it otherwise.
For 14 years, I've connected with millions of people of all ages,
nationalities, religions, states of mind and on and on with a
mulititude of purposes including promoting 'free speech' in the
world. The biggest block to free speech is not
the government, but the citizens who are immersed in judgment.
You mean people judging if you are being interesting or boring? Yeah,
that judgment probably isn't going anywhere, you might have to live
with that one.
It would create a very different outlook if you were to explore my
simple website and read the topics that interest you.
I told you I did read your Website, are you reading what I am writing?
My underlying main interest is 'relationships
as a spiritual path {love path} which is the No. 1 path of interest
in the Western world today.
Relationships with whom?
All my writing is an invitation to dialog and from my discerning
experience that I've researched mainly from 'experience' for over 30
years.
Dude we've all been around for a while and have lots of experiences.
I think you are gunna have to focus up a bit if you want to get some
message across.
People love it and hate it.
You haven't gotten either end of intensity out of me yet. I'm still
in befuddlement.
, There is always the click button.
No, really? OMG, there IS a click button! This is gunna save me sooo
much time!
- no doubt many on this site are open
How many. let's see hands...almost everyone!
- that I know from year of experience. If this is not an open
spiritual/conscious ness site, then it's perhaps not in the groups
interest.
Oh I get it, if we don't dig what you write it is because we are not
on an open spiritual/conscious ness site. Very slick! Personally I
blame Rick for that, he started this site and so far people seem VERY
resistant to people like yourself with 30 years of experiences backing
what they feel to express and not promoting anything at all except
relationships and free speech.
Just one question, should there be free speech? That sounds kind of
like some new fangled concept. I can't see that catching on.
Arhata
Gesundheit!
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho
arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote:
Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing
this for 15 years
with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this
judgment is
a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked
insecurities and that's
good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's
intent to question
Arhata,
This rap might work on teenagers on Venice Beach but you are not gunna
get any traction with this technique on this board. Insecurity is not
one of this group's qualities.
I checked our your site and you seem like an interesting enough guy.
I would read more of your story. But you are gunna get a warmer
reception here if you treat us like peers and not a class that you
need to enlighten. I don't know your story, which might
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Curtis You are responding to the wrong person. I am the eternal wrote the post you are responding to. Telling me I'm not wanted here is fine. No need to say 'scoot'! It's not exactly the way the Mararishi would respond. You may be representative of consciousness here because of a collective 'belief system' that engenders fear that cloaks as judgment. I get who you are, I'm just into dialog and not judgment. Very interesting that everyone here, as you say, is of one mind. The two essays -'Old People and Reinvent Yourself' hit truth somewhere but truth and denial- fear, are strangers. It's quite amusing that I've never encountered someone 'banned' from a group that wasn't obviously 'abusive'. Thank you for the confirmation of the Zen Stick's value. Arhata On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Arhata Osho arhatafreespeech@ yahoo.com wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata Salaam Ah Lakum, Arhata, Me things you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I privately complained to our moderators because of the canned oversized HTML format, the catchy subject and then the realization that this is yet another pamphlet. Feel free if our gracious hosts will allow you to put these tracts into the Files section. Otherwise, except for an occasional promo from a member, what's prized on FFL is a URL to something that might be of interest to the group or your opinion on something. The views in your pamplets /might/ get someone nervous (but who knows?) if someone actually read one of them. But your pamplets are not read. Please go read the posting guidelines and abide by them or scoot. Ah Lakum Salaam
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Thank you for your interest I haven't your name? Just a brief response here until later. Brief outline of my background: Graduated at University of Oregon 20 years on Wall st. primarily as an Account Executive in the Financial Field Had a vision to start a spiritual community/center which I did from 1991-2006 while doing the 'world's largest free speech display'(300') located in LA (Venice Beach) with the theme of 'spiritual shock talk writing' -all of it for the learning experience and the passion of doing what I love. Also, had fairly good size meditation groups for the last 20 years. Continue this on a different level above the Olympics in Washington State while hoping to restart a different type of Center. Have material for 7-10 unpublished books waiting for assistance from some one who will edit. My incentive has been a very amazing and successful life of personal intimate relationships, hence my main topic of 'relationships as a spiritual path'. One of my objectives is to influence people around the country to set up small 'freespeech displays' based on any subject, particularly not media-covered and with consciousness. One of my current projects is to connect with 'spiritual yahoo groups' in hopes of making a few friends who are conscious and open. Later and thank you, Arhata hi arhata, i just read some of your billboards on your website, to see what all the fuss is about. what i read were some basic statements about mindfulness and witnessing. what i read were attempts by you to wake people up to a new way of seeing the world. what i read were various essays about facets of mindfulness, such as greater enjoyment through being present and aware. i get all of that. now i want to know more about you. what was your journey to get to this point, where you have come to share what you have learned spiritually, and why you do it? i am much more interested in knowing something about you. otherwise all of your billboards might as well be mildly interesting greeting cards. like for example, you write about a guy you knew who was into meditating and noticing the world. now he is into his job and house and he has bills to pay. are those mutually exclusive ways of being? are you saying that living a fully engaged life in society, paying bills, having a mortgage, raising a family, using credit cards, etc. is antithetical or opposed to living a purely spiritual life, enraptured every moment by the cosmic wonder and immensity of the world within our incomprehensible universe? are material possessions signs to you that i for example, cannot live as a deeply spiritual person, gaining my enlightenment daily, deeply immersed in the profound cosmic wave of life? have at it please. i'm listening.
[FairfieldLife] Great commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn8b1DL8NGo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
The consensus of this group, Arhata, is, unfortunately, that they want to censor posts. Although I disagree with their rules, it is their right to do it. For example, I believe MY free expression has been curtailed here because I like to post a lot of one or two line responses. But the consensus is that only a maximum of 50 posts a week are allowed. So my type of expression is limited because I would end up doing 100 or more short posts a week whereas those that like to concentrate on only a few but long drawn out posts are comfortable with the 50-a- week rule. I've always argued that for those that are bothered by what they consider spam or your or my type of posting that it is easy enough to, first, switch to the option of only seeing the message list on the Yahoo! page instead of receiving individual emails for each posting. That way one can easily scan about 30 messages at a time and quickly weed out the undesirerables like you and me. Doesn't take a lot of effort and no one is censored. This imposes the very least restriction on one's expression. Sadly, most on this forum don't see it that way so we have to live with their rules. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self- promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal l.shad...@... wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@...wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata Salaam Ah Lakum, Arhata, Me things you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I privately complained to our moderators because of the canned oversized HTML format, the catchy subject and then the realization that this is yet another pamphlet. Feel free if our gracious hosts will allow you to put these tracts into the Files section. Otherwise, except for an occasional promo from a member, what's prized on FFL is a URL to something that might be of interest to the group or your opinion on something. The views in your pamplets /might/ get someone nervous (but who knows?) if someone actually read one of them. But your pamplets are not read. Please go read the posting guidelines and abide by them or scoot. Ah Lakum Salaam Tell me, Eternal One, how much of a burden on you is it to simply ignore or delete Aharta's posts? Is it that you've opted to receive all posts as individual emails? If that is the case, why don't you, instead, opt to see all messages -- 30 at a time -- on the Yahoo! page of FFL? That way, you can easily pick and choose whose posts you want to read...and since the message list will give you about 25 words of the post, you can be even more discriminating about who you want to read and who you don't. That way, no one is censored. How about it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@... wrote: Curtis Telling me I'm not wanted here is fine. No need to say 'scoot'! It's not exactly the way the Mararishi would respond. [snip] Uh, I wouldn't be too sure of that...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: I have asked the moderators to ban you if you don't stop spamming the group
Although, I have no intention, Shem(?) of bowing out or being censored. my yahoo group for anyone open to some really smart kind open people is 'superconsciousn...@yahoogroups.com' The only rules are limit judgment and arguing needlessly and then their is compassion. I suspect many here feel the same way. The number of posts tend to decrease with more thought out emails and with humor and high intelligence. Certainly, there is some of that here and some very good spirits. Arhata The consensus of this group, Arhata, is, unfortunately, that they want to censor posts. Although I disagree with their rules, it is their right to do it. For example, I believe MY free expression has been curtailed here because I like to post a lot of one or two line responses. But the consensus is that only a maximum of 50 posts a week are allowed. So my type of expression is limited because I would end up doing 100 or more short posts a week whereas those that like to concentrate on only a few but long drawn out posts are comfortable with the 50-a- week rule. I've always argued that for those that are bothered by what they consider spam or your or my type of posting that it is easy enough to, first, switch to the option of only seeing the message list on the Yahoo! page instead of receiving individual emails for each posting. That way one can easily scan about 30 messages at a time and quickly weed out the undesirerables like you and me. Doesn't take a lot of effort and no one is censored. This imposes the very least restriction on one's expression. Sadly, most on this forum don't see it that way so we have to live with their rules. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Arhata Osho arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Canned, self promoting, and, spiritual pamphlets?? I've been doing this for 15 years with millions of people purely from truth and a passion and, this judgment is a new one! Thank you! Something I've wrote has provoked insecurities and that's good as it's an opportunity for those who see it different than it's intent to question why they see it in a negative light. Canned? Wow - that's a strange characterization as I copy no one and write in a 'stream of consciousness' as I am now. Self promoting is not a sin, but have no idea how that is here? A dialog is good and certainly I hope anyone who feels moved about my last 2 writings (Old People and Reinvent Yourself) will respond with any thoughts! To be open and to 'let go' are routes to a spiritual/conscious life. Shalom, Arhata --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, arhatafreespeech@ ... wrote: Maharishi Group: Ref.: to my daily I page consciousness messages, the last 2 being 'Old People' and 'Reinvent Yourself' If this is the kind of participation that goes on in this group, and who don't even know the meaning of 'spam' or 'click off', you should count me out or, offer an explanation. Here's an explanation: most of your posts are canned, self- promoting, spiritual pamphlets. In the context of FFL, that constitutes spam, and this is not the place to do it.
