[FairfieldLife] Re: The Obama Administration Takes Over
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > Cartoon: > > http://mapaghimagsik.comicgenesis.com/comics/takingOver20090129.gif > > > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access /images/nosteal.jpg on this server. > > Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to > use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. > > Apache/2.2.9 (FreeBSD) Server at mapaghimagsik.comicgenesis.com Port 80 Try this link: http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/open-thread-78
[FairfieldLife] The Incredible Shrinking Republican Party
Cartoon: http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/02/03/tomo/story.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Obama Administration Takes Over
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > Cartoon: > http://mapaghimagsik.comicgenesis.com/comics/takingOver20090129.gif > Forbidden You don't have permission to access /images/nosteal.jpg on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.2.9 (FreeBSD) Server at mapaghimagsik.comicgenesis.com Port 80
[FairfieldLife] The Obama Administration Takes Over
Cartoon: http://mapaghimagsik.comicgenesis.com/comics/takingOver20090129.gif
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: perhaps after all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! He did. MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human being" - Vlodrop, 1999 MMY's normal was someone in CC A pity he never thought that any of his students were normal. At least not enough to say so. Doncha think? If I get what Amma implies, any of the gurus known for their bad behavior, i.e. sex with their students, diddling young boys, etc. could not or would not be jivan-mukta's, i.e. in CC. So by that standard, ole M. was just one of many false gurus, many who were quite popular, but none were "normal" in the sense being described.
[FairfieldLife] Doubt -- Was Father Flynn Guilty or Innocent? SPOILER ALERT
[ This is a post for folks who have seen the film. So far on this forum, that seems to include only Raunchydog, do.rflex, and myself. In past writings about this film, I have tried very carefully to not post anything that might spoil a potential viewer's innocent appreciation of the film, and have focused on saying things that might enhance it. This rap falls into a different category. If you haven't seen the film, I suggest that you put off reading this post until after you have seen it. Or, don't bother to read it at all, as with so many other of my posts. :-) ] SPOILER ALERT -- scroll down for content -- SPOILER ALERT As you can probably tell, I liked the film "Doubt." I found it one of the best-written screenplays in years, and one of the best-directed and best-acted productions. Many reviewers have cataloged their theories about the mystery at the heart of the film -- was Father Flynn guilty or innocent of having an improper gay relationship with Donald, the young black student? This question has been made *more* of a question as a result of the writer and director saying once that he told only the actor playing Father Flynn the answer to the question. NO ONE knows the "real answer" except for Shanley and those actors. So anything I write here about "my theory" is just that -- a theory. It has no relationship to truth, any more than any of the theories of the nuns in the film about his guilt or innocence did. The three possibilities have been cataloged in the press, and here on this forum: 1. FF could be guilty of wrongful actions in the present, in the form of having had an improper relationship with Donald, and acting upon it. 2. FF could be innocent in the present of any wrong actions, but guilty of similar infractions in his past. 3. FF could be innocent of all charges, both in the present and in the past, and be the innocent victim of Sister Aloysius' obsession and misplaced zeal to "right wrongs," even if they never happened anywhere but inside her head. My theory is a variant of Door Number Three. It's based on a theme I found throughout the film -- parallelism. Throughout the film, we see the same actions and words being echoed over and over. The closing of windows, white things fluttering in the wind. The same speeches being delivered, by different characters and in different contexts. So, with this obvious and intentional parallelism in mind, think about one more possible parallel: 3a. What if Father Flynn is like Donald? Donald's mother says that he has homosexual tendencies, but has never acted on them. What if Father Flynn is exactly the same? Parallelism. Donald is self conscious, and asks, "Do you think I'm fat?," hoping *that* is the reason the other students are looking at him. He's afraid that his classmates perceive him as being as different as he feels inside. Father Flynn keeps making excuses for his habit of wearing his fingernails long, and well-manicured. When Sister Aloysius and he finally have their final confrontation, the main thing he wants to know is another parallelism. She browbeats young Sister Anne by repeat- ing, "What have you *seen*?" That is exactly what Father Flynn wants to know, too. When asked why, he shouts, "Because I want to *know*!" What if he really is just like Donald, a person with homosexual tendencies, but (like Donald) someone who has never acted on them, and has done his best to be a good priest, and to help the people in his care? But what if (like Donald), he lives with the everpresent fear that someone will see "inside him," to the thing he's never acted upon? My theory is mine because I think this explanation is the one that best explains all the facts presented onscreen and the body language of Philip Seymour Hoffman in portraying Father Flynn. It explains his anguish. It explains his concern about the things that Sister Aloysius may have *seen*, and that led her to believe that he was gay. It explains his decision to leave that church and go to another one. But most of all, it explains his obvious compassion. Father Flynn -- *whatever* his actions -- is a compassionate being. More than anyone else in the play except possibly Sister Anne, he is driven by an understanding of other people and a desire to help them. Sister Aloysius is not, and she does not fully understand why and how he is. When Father Flynn asks her, "Where is your compassion?" her response is as cold as her heart: "Nowhere you can get at it!" But Father Flynn's compassion is on his sleeve. He really *does* care about these kids, and about fragile Sister Anne. He even cares about Sister Aloysius, the woman who is trying to destroy his career in the Church and put an end to his calling as a priest. The film is dedicated to the real Sister Anne, one of John Patrick Shanley's teachers when *he* attended Catholic schools, in the very era in which the film is set. He credits her with having to some extent saved
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he said so!! > > He did. > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal human > > being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > MMY's normal was someone in CC > L. I think I would have to agree with Bevan, if MMY was saying he was normal because he was in CC, then surely that is a new definition of normal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: new books on Maharishi ???
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:13 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > Median income for physics PHD with 20+ years of experience: > > > > > > > > $125,000 > > > > > > > > ANd Hagelin isn't any old "median" physicist, despite what people here > > > > like to pretend. > > > > > > > > > He's been out of the field for how long? And with a tarnished > > > reputation for peddling pseudoscience? I'd be amazed if he could get > > > an entry level job. > > > > > I doubt any non-TMO university would hire him at this point. > > > > RIght... > > And how many world famous theories is your name associated with > > > Lawson And how many is John Hagelin? Name just one. Or do you believe him when he says he's finished Einstiens work. He couldn't get a job sweeping floors at CERN with delusions like that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy, MMY was a Potentate! (new books on Maharishi ???)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." wrote: > > > perhaps after > > > all MMY was just human, true it would have been nice had he > > > said so!! > > > > He did. > > > > MMY: "I'm just a normal human being" > > Bevan: "Well today we certainly got a new definition of a normal > > human being" > > > > - Vlodrop, 1999 > > > MMY's normal was someone in CC A pity he never thought that any of his students were normal. At least not enough to say so. Doncha think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Folk theory of Guru-based Spirituality
Great list. Jody is always good for stirring things up. I'd be interested in how many here believe in them. My comments are below, to prime the pump. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > I disagree that some of these are folk theories. In any event, I > found the list at guruphiliac: > > Folk Theory of Guru-Based Spirituality > > Enlightenment can be transmitted supernaturally I believe that *experience* can be transmitted. Whether the process is "supernatural" or whether the experience being transmitted is enlightenment is an open question for me. > Enlightenment is the culmination of something I don't believe this. I think it's a result of hierarchical thinking, whereas the universe is relational, not hierarchical. It's fascinating, though, how many believe this without reservation. It's also fascinating how many think that they can kick back and not work on themselves any more once they experience something they consider enlightenment. > Enlightenment entails knowing everything Don't believe this. But then I don't know everything. :-) > Enlightenment causes all thought to cease Don't believe this. It's actually contrary to the common definition of enlightenment. Samadhi may be defined as the cessation of thought, but the definition of enlightenment is samadhi *with* thoughts and actions. > Enlightenment is love Don't think I've ever heard this, much less believe it. Love is the middle name of actress Jennifer Love Hewitt. How stupid would her name sound if she billed herself as Jennifer Enlightenment Hewitt, right? :-) > Only a guru can bestow enlightenment Don't believe this. It's even contrary to the anecdotal historical record. See Buddha and Ramana Maharshi. But I like the word "bestow." It makes me think of pirates. "Bestow that bilge below decks, me hearties." Or was that "stow?" Never mind. :-) > The guru is within yourself And boy! does that make it hard to shop for clothes. I believe that it's possible that the guru is inside Bevan Morris, but that's why he shops at Big & Tall. :-) > Being God means having some or all of "God's" powers Especially the part about not being able to prove that you exist. :-) > Because you are God, you can affect things by thought alone I affect things by thought alone all the time. Some shyster on TV or in an introductory lecture tries to sell me something, I think, "That sounds like a scam," and don't give him my money. I have affected him. And my bank balance. :-) > Because you are connected to everything, you can affect things > by thought alone See above. My bank balance is connected to having learned a little something from a lifetime of gullibility. > Everything is connected And it's made of Tinkertoys. :-) > You are guided by a higher self If so, it's got a white cane and is wearing dark glasses and needs help at busy intersections. :-) > You create your own reality This is the one I'm interested in how many people here believe. I don't. I'm more of an interdependent origination kinda guy. Reality is the intersection of internal reality and external reality, both of which are real, both of which exist. > Everything in the world is an illusion See above. Don't believe this for an instant. As someone once said, "Knowledge is structured in consciousness." In some states of consciousness, the world *appears* to be an illusion. That does not mean it is in any other state of consciousness. It's amazing to me how many people don't get this. > Divinity can be subverted by the flesh I'm not sure what exactly is meant here by either "divinity" or "flesh." If Jody is trying to say that one's divine nature can be somewhat humbled by being covered with a ton of chicken parts and flesh, I agree with him. If he's suggesting that the body having "impure" thoughts or doing "impure" things keeps its "divinity" away, I think that's a crock of shit. I believe that everything is equally divine, and equally base. Except chicken parts. They're icky. :-) > Good and evil are forces locked in an eternal struggle And as at all title bouts, front row seats cost a *lot*. :-) I believe that forces of creation and destruction interact constantly, but that's just called entropy, or life. "Good" and "evil" are constructions created by human beings to express their preferences for some things and their fear of others. > Good always prevails Anyone who believes this has never been in a war zone. I have. > Things will be better in the future I believe that the only thing one can realistically say in this regard about the future is that it will be the present when it happens, and that it won't be all that different from this present. > Things were better in the past I believe that the past was not much different from the present, and won't be from the future. Thinking that either is "better" than the present is a way to avoid experiencing the present. > People and things can be
