[FairfieldLife] Kenya all over tha world?

[cardemaister]

Wilson Kirwa, born in Kenya, in the Finnish 
Dancing with the Stars:

http://www.mtv3.fi/ohjelmat/tanssiitahtienkanssa2008/parit.shtml?782209

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:

 TurquoiseB wrote:
  
  Echo is the name of the main character in this series. I 
  somehow do not think that this is an accident. I am going to
  swim against the stream of reviewer opinion on this series,
  and say that I think it's just smokin'. Hot as hell. Spiritual
  three-alarm chili. Dollhouse rocks.
 
  It's got the potential for great philosophical television.
  Whether it has the story line and the characterization to
  make it salable philosophical television is yet to be seen.
  The whole series rides on the shoulders of Eliza Dushku,
  and she is not everyone's C-cuppa tea. But because he has
  displayed seeing before in casting with Morena Baccarin
  and with Summer Glau, I'm going to trust in Joss Whedon 
  here, and think as he does that she has the range to 
  pull it off. 
 
 Enlightened people don't lose their past memories so it 
 would not be any kind of description of enlightenment.  

You never tried to ask Maharishi about any of
his pet projects that had been failures, right?  
Total loss of memory. :-)

 As for the shoq I really was reminded of NBC's My Own 
 Worst Enemy.  Joss is going to have to work a 
 little harder to keep his audience on this one.

I doubt it will find an audience in large numbers; 
I just like it. Like John From Cincinnati it plays 
with interesting ideas. But JFC flopped. So this one
might, too.

The problem with the premise is that the American 
public wants instant payoff in a TV series. They
often want to understand everything in the first or
second episode. So that's tough for creators like
Joss Whedon or Alan Ball or David Milch who like to
take their time developing characterization and
plot.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  So. I'm currently watching the first episode of Joss 
  Whedon's new TV series, Dollhouse. And yes, if you're 
  wondering, I got it from the Pirate Bay, which means 
  that it was distributed free to us eyepatch-wearing 
  evildoers out here in cyberspace before it was ever 
  shown on American television. This is the world you 
  live in. Love it or leave it.
 
 Hey Unk, next time you publish something for money, please
 send me a pdf file so I can distribute it for free on the 
 internet so that the ability to evaluate the popularity  
 of your work, not to mention your ability to make money, 
 will be compromised.

Lawson, I'm going to assume that you just 
got your buttons pushed by something I said
yesterday, possibly not even in this post,
and were just looking for a way to dump on
me. It's just that this is one of the lamest
ways you've found yet.

Let's look at your thesis above. You are sug-
gesting that by downloading a copy of this
TV show from the Internet I am somehow com-
promising it or its creators' ability to 
make money from it. Let's look at that, shall
we?

* Dollhouse is on FOX television. That is
broadcast TV. Please write back and tell me
how much you plan to spend watching it on 
broadcast TV.

* Any profit from the series has already been
made and is in Joss' bank accounts. Future
profit by the creators of the series (as opposed
to FOX television) will depend on DVD sales.

* Joss' past series are among the most down-
loaded in history. Interestingly, the DVDs of 
these series are also among the biggest sellers.
DVD sales of these series have reached cult
proportions. Joss himself, and most financial
analysts, see a 1-to-1 link between the down-
loading and the DVD sales. Counter-intuitively
enough, the *same* people who downloaded them
*also* bought the DVDs, because they wanted
all the extras and commentary on them.

* The copy I found of this episode on the Net 
would not be there if it had not been released
in digital form by the producers of the show.
Chances are it's from a DVD sent to reviewers.
WHY was it sent to reviewers? So that they'd
write reviews to generate buzz about the
show. I was not on that reviewers' list, but
I wrote three reviews of this show last night
and sent them off. Hopefully they will encourage
people to give the show a shot. So was my piracy
a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

* Media piracy is a complex issue that cannot be 
reduced to a simplistic Thou shalt not steal.
As I've said many times, here in Spain I *have
no other choice* if I want to see many movies
and television. They won't be available here
legally for six months to a year. The piracy
exists because the producers have not been 
smart enough yet to figure out Video On Demand
effectively. If there had been a way to pay for
this show, I would have done so. There is not.
That is FOX's problem, not Joss' problem. He
has already been paid. It's FOX that is trying
to make money now, in the form of number of 
viewers and the ads they can sell based on that
number. If FOX had been smart enough to figure
out a way to sell digital copies of the show,
they wouldn't be so dependent on the number
of eyeballs watching it on broadcast TV to
make their money.

* As for you distributing PDFs of anything I 
write for profit to teach me a lesson, and to
demonstrate how morally superior you are to me,
you're a little late on that one. I distribute
free digital versions of almost everything I
write for profit. Unlike you, I'm hip to the
value of word-of-mouth advertising, and its
long-term payoff. Again, there is a clear one-
to-one relationship -- the more hits I get
on the free version of the story, the more
interest develops in the paid version of the
story. It's called marketing. That some people
in the entertainment industry are still stuck
back in Stone Age concepts of anal-rententive
copyright protection, to the point of missing
out on potential new markets for their products,
is not my problem. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:

 make no mistake, i take the world seriously and don't feel 
 i am above it at all. i take all of my relationships here 
 seriously. i just don't take you seriously, Barry. see the 
 difference?

I see the difference, Dawn. It's just that
I don't believe what you have said about
not caring what people on this forum 
think about you.

You care very much. When I tried to initiate
an actual conversation with you yesterday and
you blew it off, I reacted by telling you what
I thought that blow-off indicated -- disorder.
Then I stopped replying to you. 

You reacted to that fairly strongly, by making
at least two posts trying desperately to get me 
to respond back to you, on your terms. You spent 
at least one other post griping and bitching 
about me to someone else.

In other words, you cared *very much* that I
blew you off. If you follow your normal patterns
on this forum ( you know...that past history
you don't believe you have ), you will continue
to do so. Your pattern is to claim that you are
not interested in convincing anyone of anything
or whether they believe you and that you don't 
care what they think about you, and then when 
they write you off and stop talking to you, you 
get panicky and start trashing them in post after
post, trying to get their attention back again.

I'm writing this to hopefully save you the 
trouble of doing this again this time. You can
continue to write whatever you want to write 
here in the future. You can continue to write
it in the moment, believing that you have no
past and no future if you want. 

But you kinda lost my interest, Dude. Or Dude-ess. :-)

What you call exchanging energies strikes me as
a tad one-sided. You seem to want to be able to
just say stuff here and have people be impressed
by it, and never question you about the things 
you say. I can understand that. I do a bit of it
myself. :-)

But I try not to get all whiny when someone fails 
to respond to the stuff I say, or responds nega-
tively. I just say it. 

Your history, the past that you feel you do not
have, is that you say it and then expect some kind
of reply or response to you, *on your terms*. You
don't enjoy it when someone wants you to explain
your pronouncements or attempts at expounding
cosmic truths. You don't enjoy it so much that
you often lash out at those who *do* ask you to
explain. And so those people, over time, realize
that you really AREN'T interested in exchanging
energies here, except on your own terms. So they
write you off and stop responding to your posts.
And then you panic and start trying to insult or
badger them into responding again.

That's the pattern as I see it, Dude. Or Dude-ess. 

I'm *fine* with you just writing shit in the moment,
and then not bothering to back up or explain
the things you write. Do it myself. But hopefully
I don't whine too much when people fail to interact
with me based on what I write. In the past, you have.
Hopefully you won't so much in the future.

If you want to live in the moment and feel as if
you have no past and no future, cool. Just say
shit and move on to the next shit. 

But don't whine if few respond to the shit as if 
it don't stink. And try not to fall into the trap
of trying to badger or insult people into responding
to the shit if they don't want to. That's what's
grating. 

Look at the person whose I'll just badger and insult 
them until they talk to me again behavior you are 
emulating on this forum. She's been running this
number for years, and as a result how many people 
still talk to her? 'Nuff said, I hope. 


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   On Feb 14, 2009, at 1:06 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
   
I'm trying to pin down what the thinking is that
leads people to act as if they have no responsibility 
for their actions...

[FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin Tarantino could love

[TurquoiseB]

Continuing the rap about the disappointing-to-
many debut of Dollhouse, here is a link to a
trade article talking about how badly it did 
in the ratings. 

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/02/dollhouse-terminator-premiere-ratings.html

But, what is far more interesting on this page
is the video clip that's there. 

It appears to be a *real* commercial from FOX
for their two most interesting series -- Doll-
house and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Watch it and see if you don't understand why they
are both losing in the ratings game. 

It's not the series themselves; it's the marketing,
stupid. These people at FOX have on their hands 
two television shows with a pretty interesting
intelligence quotient to them, but which also
contain action and attractive women. 

So how do they choose to *market* these shows?
By stressing the action and the attractive women,
and aiming the ads at *non-intelligent* doofuses.

THIS, in my opinion, is why FOX screws up so many
potentially interesting TV series. The series
themselves are often pretty good, and even intel-
ligent. But the people trying to sell them to the
public are anything BUT intelligent.

This commercial is almost parody. I had to watch
it twice to realize that it wasn't. Clearly, if
this commercial was aimed at the perceived intel-
ligence of his viewers, FOX thinks that the people
who watch its entertainment shows are as mentally
challenged as the ones who watch its News shows.

[FairfieldLife] Re: British women pay the price(getting raped) for increasing Muslim population

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptyb...@... wrote:

 I love it. It is alway fun to have a racially motivated neo-marxist 
 in a forum like this. Rewritting history is a victors game 
 which Edg  gets to play for free - no costs, just the spoils. 
 Edg is himself one of the spoils of European victory. 
 The only reason 
 this forum can exist is because the destroying muslim armies were 
 stopped outside of Budpest 325 years ago. 

Well...who knows?

But perhaps the spoils of European history would have been much the
less had Islam not been the engine for Occidental knowledge prior to
our Age Of Enlightenment (not TMO!). They kept alive (and added to)
the knowledge of the Greeks as well Indian and Chinese science when
*we* were in the Dark Ages.

Besides - I would no longer be able to enjoy music such as this:

http://tinyurl.com/cgdgsn


 If not for that Edg would 
 be sitting and rocking side to side chanting the sword suras from the 
 Koran. With the fanatical disposition he demonstrates here he would 
 be the first to kill us for a glorious place in paradice and for the 
 satisfaction of his god. 
 
 Go blow yourself up somewhere.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Arhata,
  
  You cat-shit loving dog.
  
  Eh, let's see what is in history that might be on the minds of the
  Islamic World when they consider our western culture.
  
  White Christians killed off the native Americans and stole the
  children from the few they didn't kill.
  
  White Christians killed off the native South Americans.
  
  White Christians invaded and ruled all of India.
  
  White Christians to this very moment are raping Africa and
  historically have a 200+ years long era of using/killing slaves and
  openly hanging any African American that they targeted.
  
  White Christians have allowed the merchant class to import 
 10,000,000
  Mexican slaves.
  
  White Christians attacked and/or invaded dozens of sovereign nations
  in the last 50 years.
  
  White Christians killed a million Arabs in the last five years.
  
  White Christians are almost singlehandedly responsible for the 
 30,000
  children that die every single day.  That's over 10,000,000 per 
 year.
  
  White Christians sniffed and looked the other way when Chinese paid
  assassins chopped a million mothers and babies to death.
  
  White Christians killed 200,000 Japanese in a mere two attacks, and
  imprisoned, without cause, all the Japanese Americans they could 
 find.
  
  White Christians killed 100,000+ artisans when they burned a 
 peaceful
  town of Dresden to the ground.
  
  White Christians have over 500 military bases around the world and
  out-spend the all the other countries combined on evolving their war
  machines.
  
  White Christians have built an internment camp network that may
  shortly be put to use incarcerating the rioters who have had their
  homes and livelihoods evaporated by the elites.
  
  White Christians have a network of secret rendition/torture camps.
  
  If you were born into Islam, and your leaders only told the above 
 true
  facts, that alone would be enough to form the Islamic world as it is
  today.  Who would want their children to integrate with white
  Christian genocidal, rapists, murderers, torturing thugs, and global
  financial marauders who in the last six months sucked half the 
 world's
  wealth into a few white Christian coffers?
  
  There's never a good reason for anyone to hate and fear any
  nationality, creed, race, etc., but in all the annals of history,
  never has one group been such a scourge upon the planet that it is
  entirely understandable that other groups would do everything in 
 their
  power to keep their kids safe from white Christians.
  
  Oh, now someone can trot out all the shit that others have done, but
  explain to me how that makes America White Christian Sin acceptable?
  
  Arhata, your spirituality mask is made of Saran Wrap -- through that
  laughable veneer we see the maliciousness of a rabid dogexcept,
  you know, the dog can't help itself.  Your espousal of hate
  literature, your inserting it into our community here -- surely you
  have no friends except skin heads, serial killers, and Michael Vick.
  
  This is all I can write, because, you know, I've taken a deep and
  serious vow to speak the sweet, kind and necessary truth.
  
  And, since you must have some serious brain injury, shame on me for
  banging on ya, but for GAWD's sake, get some help.
  
  Edg 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, arhatafreespeech@ wrote:
  
   
   http://theopinionat or.typepad. com/my_weblog/ 2009/02/british-
  women-girls- pay-high- price-for- multiculturalism .html
   
   
   http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[Dick Mays]

From: Bob Roth bobr...@maharishi.net
To: Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com
Subject: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:16:25 -0500

Ringo confirmed, but we do not know if they will collaborate... but 
he is coming...




To: 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com
From: mcjrich mailto:mcjr...@yahoo.commcjr...@yahoo.com
Sender: 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:56 -
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear 
at the concert

Reply-To: 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com

Last nite on the Global chat, Peter Swan said McCartney and Ringo 
Starr and others will be at the concert

[FairfieldLife] Re: British women pay the price(getting raped) for increasing Muslim population

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:


 
 Besides - I would no longer be able to enjoy music such as this:
 
 http://tinyurl.com/cgdgsn
 


Whoa! Thanks, amazing sound, incredible playing! :D

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote:

 From: Bob Roth bobr...@...
 To: Dick Mays dickm...@...
 Subject: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the
concert
 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:16:25 -0500
 
 Ringo confirmed, but we do not know if they will collaborate... 
 but he is coming...

Just as a question, does anyone else see the
fascination with this concert as a little sad?

Don't get me wrong -- I actually applaud David
Lynch's idealism and his desire to teach a million
kids to meditate. And I think that the world would
be a better place if a million of them learned a
simple, basic technique like TM, and then were
kept as far away as humanly possible from the TMO,
its dogma, and its cultish environment.

But on another level, isn't the fascination and
excitement we see about this concert a bit of 
Forward, into the past? (To quote the Firesign
Theatre.) 

I mean, this is a 63-year-old man promoting a 
concert that features an almost 67-year-old 
singer and an almost 69-year-old drummer. And
the people getting all excited about it are in
the same age range.

It's almost as if they were looking backwards
to the glory days of the TM movement, and 
hoping that by reviving those glory days, and
using the *same* performers to do it, they can
revive their *own* glory. 

I'm not convinced that's going to happen. The
first Beatles wave happened at an opportune
moment in American history. The wave got carried
along by the *other* waves of the Hippie revolution
and the anti-war revolution, both of them based to
some extent on *rejecting* the status quo and the
staid and boring future laid out for young people
by their elders. It also happened at a time when
TM cost $35 for students and $75 for adults.

Now it costs $2000 for everyone, unless David Lynch
pays for it, and then it costs $600. So I'm thinkin'
that -- as much as I'd like to see a lot of young
people learning to meditate -- a wave is just not
gonna happen as a result of this concert. 

As for the *audience* for this concert, I have to 
be equally cynical in thinking there aren't going
to be a lot of young people there. Instead, it's
going to be a bunch of old folks reliving the glory
days of their youths by watching people as old as
they are dance around up on stage. That's cool and
all, but if I were into that I'd be trying to score
tickets to the upcoming Grateful Dead tour, not a 
concert featuring two of the Fab Four.

Anyway...these were just a few thoughts about this
concert. I really do wish them well. I hope it's a 
great concert, that all attending or performing have
a great time, and that they raise a lot of money that
will be spent teaching kids to meditate. 

But recapturing the glory days of the TM movement,
or even the glory days of its dying-faster-than-they-
are-multiplying TM practitioners? I don't see that
happening. 



 To:
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com
 From: mcjrich mailto:mcjr...@...mcjr...@...
 Sender:
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:56 -
 Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear 
 at the concert
 Reply-To:
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comfairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.com
 
 Last nite on the Global chat, Peter Swan said McCartney and Ringo 
 Starr and others will be at the concert

[FairfieldLife] Liberace's crippled triplets!?

[cardemaister]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZmxLSZBLIfeature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Liberace's crippled triplets!?

[Duveyoung]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote:

 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZmxLSZBLIfeature=related

Card,

How's come you posted this?  I don't know what your word crippled
indicates.

Liberace was in a category all his own.  That said, I don't like his
interpretation of the Moonlight Sonata -- he doesn't seem to invest in
the piece.  And, note that this is only the first movement of the work
and that the much harder parts of the sonata were not played -- and
those parts must be played with a furious passion.

Edg

[FairfieldLife] Frank Rich: They Sure Showed That Obama

[do.rflex]

AM I crazy, or wasn't the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days
ago? Obama had all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,
declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a
stimulus package through Congress. 

Obama Losing Stimulus Message War was the headline at Politico a day
later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough,
started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn't possibly eke out a
victory because the stimulus package was a steaming pile of garbage.

Less than a month into Obama's term, we don't (and can't) know how
he'll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while
hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner's uninspiring
and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at
worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he
served as Hank Paulson's first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama
has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same
crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat
Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.

On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I
asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship
between Obama and the political culture.

It's why our campaign was not based in Washington but in Chicago, he
said. We were somewhat insulated from the echo chamber. In the summer
of '07, the conventional wisdom was that Obama was a shooting star;
his campaign was irretrievably lost; it was a ludicrous strategy to
focus on Iowa; and we were falling further and further behind in the
national polls. 

But even after the Iowa victory, this same syndrome kept repeating
itself. When Obama came out against the gas-tax holiday supported by
both McCain and Clinton last spring, Axelrod recalled, everyone in
D.C. thought we were committing suicide.

The stimulus battle was more of the same. This town talks to itself
and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are
completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking, he says. 

Once the frenzy got going, it didn't matter that most polls showed
support for Obama and his economic package: If you watched cable TV,
you'd see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was
almost like living in a parallel universe.

For Axelrod, the moral is not just that Washington is too insular but
that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington
think.

Here's a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because
Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the
noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality
as the inevitable Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. 

The G.O.P. doesn't recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle
even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the
president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last
week's. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can
now move in for the kill.

A useful template for the current political dynamic can be found in
one of the McCain campaign's more memorable pratfalls. Last fall, it
was the Beltway mantra that Obama was doomed with all those
working-class Rust Belt Democrats who'd flocked to Hillary in the
primaries. The beefy, beer-drinking, deer-hunting white guys —
incessantly interviewed in bars and diners — would never buy the
skinny black intellectual. Nor would the dead-ender Hillary women. 

The McCain camp not only bought into this received wisdom, but bet the
bank on it, pouring resources into states like Michigan and Wisconsin
before abandoning them and doubling down on Pennsylvania in the
stretch. The sucker-punched McCain lost all three states by
percentages in the double digits.

The stimulus opponents, egged on by all the media murmurings about
Obama losing control, also thought they had a sure thing. Their TV
advantage added to their complacency. 

As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress
wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not
just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House
stimulus bill. They started pounding in their slogans relentlessly.
The bill was not a stimulus package but an orgy of pork spending. The
ensuing deficit would amount to generational theft. F.D.R.'s New
Deal had been an abject failure.

This barrage did shave a few points off the stimulus's popularity in
polls, but its approval rating still remained above 50 percent in all
(Gallup, CNN, Pew, CBS) but one of them (Rasmussen, the sole poll the
G.O.P. cites). 

Perhaps the stimulus held its own because the public, in defiance of
Washington's condescending assumption, was smart enough to figure out
that the government can't create jobs without spending and that
Bush-era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 

 
 I mean, this is a 63-year-old man promoting a 
 concert that features an almost 67-year-old 
 singer and an almost 69-year-old drummer. And
 the people getting all excited about it are in
 the same age range.

I'm going and throwing my old lady panties on stage.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
  
   In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly
insignificant
   results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
   the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
   is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
   Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points
or your
   IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
   to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
   interesting.
  
  
  Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the
actual  
  figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously
insignificant  
  result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
  0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
instead  
  push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
  pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
  the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
  instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
  news.
 
 
 Marketing is another issue.
 
 
 L

Yes, but it is hard to separate the issues.  We acknowledge that
everyone has some bias and everyone likes to be right.  This is
exhibited in risks of confirmation bias and risks of using a too
narrow an approach.  However, the risks are not the same for everyone
everywhere. A marketing blitz by your supporting organization which
tends to exaggerate results reflects on you as part of the
organization.  Some, like Orme-Johnson and Haglin, both market and
research, which makes it look like they are even more biased than
most.  The woman who did the ADHD pilot study has participated in
marketing her study. Travis has done talks that wax eloquent about the
power of TM. How often do the TMO researchers test alternative
hypotheses? And isn't a particular complaint of TM research that there
is evidence of expectation bias in that they view all their data as
fitting their expectation that TM works? 

It is all part of trying to evaluate the bias risks.  We do not have
access to their actual procedures, to their hard data.  We can't know
to what extent their biases effect a particular study. But given the
fact that false positives are likely prevalent in research anyway,
that Orme-Johnson has said that they lean towards trying to show an
effect in their research, that many of the TM researchers participate
in exaggerated marketing claims,that the TMO researchers truly believe
TM works,  my bias concerns are greater with the TMO than with
Davidson.  All bias is not created equal.  

This is separate from my discussion of pattern recognition, but as all
these things are it is related.  The issue of pattern recognition is
two-fold.  One is positive, the ability of trained experts to spot new
and interesting patterns.  The other is negative, the risk of seeing a
pattern when none is there.  



 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 I mean, this is a 63-year-old man promoting a 
 concert that features an almost 67-year-old 
 singer and an almost 69-year-old drummer. And
 the people getting all excited about it are in
 the same age range.

Well, we don't exactly have a large contingent
of younger sprouts on this forum, do we? Could
that be why the folks here who are getting all
excited are in the same age range, because there
aren't any in any *other* age range?

 It's almost as if they were looking backwards
 to the glory days of the TM movement, and 
 hoping that by reviving those glory days, and
 using the *same* performers to do it, they can
 revive their *own* glory. 

Given that the Beatles had their own glory days
quite independently of the TM movement, seems to
me there's no good reason to assume TMers are
looking back to the TMO's Beatles-dependent glory
days rather than to those of the Beatles themselves
(which were significantly more glorious than the
TMO's by most measures anyway).

If the concert helps the TMO attract new meditators,
great, but for many if not most, it'll have its own
value.

snip
 As for the *audience* for this concert, I have to 
 be equally cynical in thinking there aren't going
 to be a lot of young people there.

I'd guess nobody much cares about that. What's 
important is the publicity and the box office, which
will, presumably, enhance the TMO's and Lynch's
subsequent outreach efforts. I doubt anybody's
expecting thousands of young people to attend the
concert and be inspired by it to join up afterward.

 Instead, it's
 going to be a bunch of old folks reliving the glory
 days of their youths by watching people as old as
 they are dance around up on stage. That's cool and
 all, but if I were into that I'd be trying to score
 tickets to the upcoming Grateful Dead tour, not a 
 concert featuring two of the Fab Four.

In other words, Barry thinks the Grateful Dead are
better than the Beatles were.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[Vaj]

On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:47 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:

 I really would like to see them research unstressing.


I couldn't agree more, I've always felt this would be a fascinating  
opportunity to study meditation. Back when the TMSP was first  
introduced would have been the opportune time, less so now. Although  
the IA course, when in full swing, could represent such an opportunity.

This seems especially important after reading Austin. He comments of  
the negative effects of closed eyes meditation vs. opened eyes  
meditation in people with depression--essentially a meditatively  
induced SAD. Closed eyes meditation screws with our ACTH and melatonin  
cycles. No surprise sleep disturbances are common. Could it lead to  
suicide if overused (rounding) and therefore be required to contain  
a warning label? Is that what happened on the European course where  
the whole course went whacko? What is the biochemistry behind that?

Also with the discovery of neuroplasticity and the fact that calcium- 
signaling pathways in neurons can regulate transcription, there are  
new reasons why the study of unstressing could be quite fascinating.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[Patrick Gillam]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
 
  
  I mean, this is a 63-year-old man promoting a 
  concert that features an almost 67-year-old 
  singer and an almost 69-year-old drummer. And
  the people getting all excited about it are in
  the same age range.
 
 I'm going and throwing my old lady panties on stage.

All the while believing you're at a Tom Jones concert, eh Ruth?

;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
  Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to
  not mention the actual figures or not mention
  them in a way makes the obviously insignificant  
  result seem small. SO instead of saying TM
  reduces blood pressure 0.08 % from normal
  baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
  instead push something like TM reduces blood
  pressure, TM decreases blood pressure, TM is
  good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and
  saturate the web and broadcast media as much as
  they can. In other words, instead of poisoning
  the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
  news.
 
 Marketing is another issue.

And it's hardly as if what Vaj describes is peculiar
to the TMO anyway; it's common to any research-based
marketing. For drug companies, for example, even the
slightest edge over competing products, or even over
placebo, can make the difference between a dud product
and a blockbuster.

BTW, Vaj should be careful about using the term
significant to mean important when discussing
research results. Significant is an objective
statistical measure in that context, not a value
judgment.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[Sal Sunshine]

On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Just as a question, does anyone else see the
fascination with this concert as a little sad?


Yep, just thinking the same thing.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  make no mistake, i take the world seriously and don't feel 
  i am above it at all. i take all of my relationships here 
  seriously. i just don't take you seriously, Barry. see the 
  difference?
 
 I see the difference, Dawn. It's just that
 I don't believe what you have said about
 not caring what people on this forum 
 think about you.
 
 You care very much. When I tried to initiate
 an actual conversation with you yesterday and
 you blew it off, I reacted by telling you what
 I thought that blow-off indicated -- disorder.
 Then I stopped replying to you. 
 
 You reacted to that fairly strongly, by making
 at least two posts trying desperately to get me 
 to respond back to you, on your terms. You spent 
 at least one other post griping and bitching 
 about me to someone else.

This account is manifestly, demonstrably false.

ed made exactly two posts, one in response to Barry's
Disorder post and one to a post of mine, both very
brief, both making fun of Barry. There wasn't anything
in either that he could have responded *to*, so they
obviously weren't an attempt to get him to respond, on
her terms or his.

For Barry to say either was a reaction to his not
replying--when there hadn't been anything for him
to not-reply *to* in the little over an hour between
his Disorder post and those two of ed's--is simply
a barefaced, knowing lie.

 In other words, you cared *very much* that I
 blew you off.

No, Barry, she blew *you* off, as you inadvertently
acknowledge above. She's been laughing at you. She
hasn't risen to your incredibly long-winded bait as
you had hoped, and you're pissed.

In the post you quote above, she's blown you off
*again*. And your response to being blown off goes
on for *14 paragraphs*.

Who is it who cares very much about being blown
off?

Barry Wright, Master of Projection.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 Look at the person whose I'll just badger and insult 
 them until they talk to me again behavior you are 
 emulating on this forum. She's been running this
 number for years, and as a result how many people 
 still talk to her? 'Nuff said, I hope. 

BTW, this is another Barry-fantasy, a twofold one.

First, I've always said what I feel like saying. If
somebody wants to respond, fine. If not, also fine.
(Same with ed. She'd behave the same way even if I
wasn't on the forum.)

Second, the number that's been run for years is
Barry's wishful thinking that very few people talk
to me. He hopes if he repeats it enough times, it will
become true. But it isn't; the majority of the posters
here do talk to me. And of those who don't, only a
few posture that they're ignoring me. The others
have nothing in particular to say to me, just as I
have nothing in particular to say to them.

Which is, of course, the way things work on any 
forum: not every poster is interested in every other
poster's thoughts enough to comment on them. I
haven't done a count, but I'd guess there are as
many people who have nothing in particular to say
to Barry as who have nothing in particular to say
to me (and vice-versa).

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[shempmcgurk]

I have to agree with pretty much everything Barry writes here.

And sad IS the best word to describe it.

It would be wonderful if many people started TM as a result.  Perhaps 
the only way that can happen is if the money raised is used to get 
people started in other countries, non-western countries because 
it's tainted here as far as education goes (which is what the Lynch 
Foundation is all about).

Let them raise several million, keep it away from Girish, and see 
about getting Venezuelans or some other nationality's people 
meditating.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote:
 
  From: Bob Roth bobroth@
  To: Dick Mays dickmays@
  Subject: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the
 concert
  Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:16:25 -0500
  
  Ringo confirmed, but we do not know if they will collaborate... 
  but he is coming...
 
 Just as a question, does anyone else see the
 fascination with this concert as a little sad?
 
 Don't get me wrong -- I actually applaud David
 Lynch's idealism and his desire to teach a million
 kids to meditate. And I think that the world would
 be a better place if a million of them learned a
 simple, basic technique like TM, and then were
 kept as far away as humanly possible from the TMO,
 its dogma, and its cultish environment.
 
 But on another level, isn't the fascination and
 excitement we see about this concert a bit of 
 Forward, into the past? (To quote the Firesign
 Theatre.) 
 
 I mean, this is a 63-year-old man promoting a 
 concert that features an almost 67-year-old 
 singer and an almost 69-year-old drummer. And
 the people getting all excited about it are in
 the same age range.
 
 It's almost as if they were looking backwards
 to the glory days of the TM movement, and 
 hoping that by reviving those glory days, and
 using the *same* performers to do it, they can
 revive their *own* glory. 
 
 I'm not convinced that's going to happen. The
 first Beatles wave happened at an opportune
 moment in American history. The wave got carried
 along by the *other* waves of the Hippie revolution
 and the anti-war revolution, both of them based to
 some extent on *rejecting* the status quo and the
 staid and boring future laid out for young people
 by their elders. It also happened at a time when
 TM cost $35 for students and $75 for adults.
 
 Now it costs $2000 for everyone, unless David Lynch
 pays for it, and then it costs $600. So I'm thinkin'
 that -- as much as I'd like to see a lot of young
 people learning to meditate -- a wave is just not
 gonna happen as a result of this concert. 
 
 As for the *audience* for this concert, I have to 
 be equally cynical in thinking there aren't going
 to be a lot of young people there. Instead, it's
 going to be a bunch of old folks reliving the glory
 days of their youths by watching people as old as
 they are dance around up on stage. That's cool and
 all, but if I were into that I'd be trying to score
 tickets to the upcoming Grateful Dead tour, not a 
 concert featuring two of the Fab Four.
 
 Anyway...these were just a few thoughts about this
 concert. I really do wish them well. I hope it's a 
 great concert, that all attending or performing have
 a great time, and that they raise a lot of money that
 will be spent teaching kids to meditate. 
 
 But recapturing the glory days of the TM movement,
 or even the glory days of its dying-faster-than-they-
 are-multiplying TM practitioners? I don't see that
 happening. 
 
 
 
  To:
 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comFairfield_Community_
ki...@yahoogroups.com
  From: mcjrich mailto:mcjrich@mcjrich@
  Sender:
 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comFairfield_Community_
ki...@yahoogroups.com
  Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:56 -
  Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will 
appear 
  at the concert
  Reply-To:
 
mailto:fairfield_community_ki...@yahoogroups.comFairfield_Community_
ki...@yahoogroups.com
  
  Last nite on the Global chat, Peter Swan said McCartney and Ringo 
  Starr and others will be at the concert
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  Look at the person whose I'll just badger and insult 
  them until they talk to me again behavior you are 
  emulating on this forum. She's been running this
  number for years, and as a result how many people 
  still talk to her? 'Nuff said, I hope. 
 
 BTW, this is another Barry-fantasy, a twofold one.
  ... the number that's been run for years is
 Barry's wishful thinking that very few people talk
 to me. He hopes if he repeats it enough times, it will
 become true. But it isn't; the majority of the posters
 here do talk to me. And of those who don't, only a
 few posture that they're ignoring me. The others
 have nothing in particular to say to me, just as I
 have nothing in particular to say to them.

Just to point out the levels of self-delusion
working here, of Judy's posts so far this week,
five have been spent badgering and insulting me,
and another four *each* have been spent badgering 
and insulting Vaj and Ruth. None of the people 
being badgered and insulted have fallen for it
and responded to her except for me, here, to 
set the record straight about Judy's lies above.

So far, only two of her total posts this week 
have been replied to by ANYONE here, and the two 
respondents were Lawson and enlightened_dawn11. 
Ruth checked in on one thread, but only to 
respond to Lawson, not Judy, and Kirk seems
to have hit the Reply key once by accident, 
because there was no content to his post. Or 
perhaps that is all he thought she deserved.

And yet Judy believes that the majority of
posters here do talk to me.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip
   Look at the person whose I'll just badger and insult 
   them until they talk to me again behavior you are 
   emulating on this forum. She's been running this
   number for years, and as a result how many people 
   still talk to her? 'Nuff said, I hope. 
  
  BTW, this is another Barry-fantasy, a twofold one.

-
[Restoring what Barry snipped, for the record:]

  First, I've always said what I feel like saying. If
  somebody wants to respond, fine. If not, also fine.
  (Same with ed. She'd behave the same way even if I
  wasn't on the forum.)
-

   ... the number that's been run for years is
  Barry's wishful thinking that very few people talk
  to me. He hopes if he repeats it enough times, it will
  become true. But it isn't; the majority of the posters
  here do talk to me. And of those who don't, only a
  few posture that they're ignoring me. The others
  have nothing in particular to say to me, just as I
  have nothing in particular to say to them.
 
 Just to point out the levels of self-delusion
 working here, of Judy's posts so far this week,
 five have been spent badgering and insulting me,
 and another four *each* have been spent badgering 
 and insulting Vaj and Ruth. None of the people 
 being badgered and insulted have fallen for it
 and responded to her except for me, here, to 
 set the record straight about Judy's lies above.
 
 So far, only two of her total posts this week 
 have been replied to by ANYONE here, and the two 
 respondents were Lawson and enlightened_dawn11. 
 Ruth checked in on one thread, but only to 
 respond to Lawson, not Judy, and Kirk seems
 to have hit the Reply key once by accident, 
 because there was no content to his post. Or 
 perhaps that is all he thought she deserved.
 
 And yet Judy believes that the majority of
 posters here do talk to me.

The majority of posters here do talk to me, as Barry
knows. Obviously a little over a day's worth of
postings from me is too small a sample to be even
remotely meaningful, *especially* since, as Barry
himself points out, most of them were commenting on
posts by the few people who, as I noted, posture
that they're ignoring me. *Of course* none of them
responded; I wouldn't expect them to.

So, in fact, Barry hasn't set a thing straight; he's
just added to his long, long, LONG record of lies--
which is what he inevitably does when *he's* been
caught in a lie or lies, as the post of mine he's
responding to did (as well as several of the others
this weekend in which I commented on posts of his).

Barry points out his *own* levels of self-delusion
(if that's what we want to call it, rather than
lying--it's one or the other). Also inevitably,
the more upset he becomes at being exposed, the
more transparent and clumsy his follow-up lies are.
He even deludes himself about the intelligence of
those reading his posts.

(And Ruth, of course, *was* responding to me, 
although she couldn't drop her posturing long
enough to make that explicit. As to Kirk, I have no
idea what he intended, but it's entirely possible
he was quoting what I said because he agreed with
it. He'd have to tell us whether that was the case
or not, obviously.)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote:

ME
  
  I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of my mind
  that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience. 
  It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a silent
  quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
  self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
  that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
  value most.
 
 Interesting post. If I may ask, if you are agreeable to share, what
is the part of you that you most value? (of course there is a quick,
 obvious answer - but beyond that.) 

Sorry for the delay in response.  The question of our self identity
really interests me, and I appreciate your weighing in on it.  I also
appreciate that in your joke your referred the the most obvious answer
for my most valued part as the quick answer rather than the
shortest answer! (The rumors that past girlfriends have used the
phrase hung like a field mouse in their descriptions caused me a lot
of bad press that I would like to avoid.)

The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
and interests that give my life meaning.  To use an analogy, I need my
spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 

 
 And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
 identify with that -- as described as such. 
 
 I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
 Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
 salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
 you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
 feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
 seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
 Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
 descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
 be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
 correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
 experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
 describe inner states completely.

This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework with a healthy
dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't.  I think I am
still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
inner value.  
 
 
  I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a universal
  truth.  
 
 Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
 Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
 perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
 true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
 large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
 own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
 true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.

Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, funny show.
 
 
 But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
  spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
  the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.
 
 What did they identify with? Some aspect of Christ? 

If I could presume to speak for them I think they identified with the
part of themselves that chose to be one with Christ through the
instrumentality of silence.  They were big on the idea that
experiencing the absolute didn't make your spiritual life a done
deal, that a lot of conscious choice was still involved. Relating to 
the experience of the mystics without including this aspect is a
common fallacy of Westerners involved with Eastern Spirituality. There
are similar descriptions, but the differences include some real deal
breakers for the Christians.  It is in the differences that you find
the most interesting components of the beliefs. The ecumenical buzz
can obscure them if you only look for similar mystical experience
descriptions. It is what you do in those states that make a Christian
different. (I don't self identify with either group.) 
 
   They
  considered this a critical theological difference between Maharishi
  and their POV.  
 
 A comment from a priest I know who started TM -- and while taking
the SCI course said diplomatically I am used to a bit more rigo

SCI was an 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote:
 
  From: Bob Roth bobroth@
  To: Dick Mays dickmays@
  Subject: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the
 concert
  Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:16:25 -0500
  
  Ringo confirmed, but we do not know if they will collaborate... 
  but he is coming...
 
 Just as a question, does anyone else see the
 fascination with this concert as a little sad?
 
most of us haven't thought twice about it. oh...you mean YOUR 
FASCINATION WITH IT? yeah, i find a lot of things about you a little 
sad.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@...
wrote:

 Curtis, your POV on this subject has been of great value for me.  For 
 myself, the cultural value placed on the silent witness by Maharishi 
 and other vedanta teachers, is something I'm still willing to affirm, 
 based on my own experience, that has some more universal human 
 value.  It does seem noumenal as opposed to phenomenal, but there's 
 no way to confirm that it is actually universal and transcendent to 
 all things.  Nevertheless, I can understand how this experience would 
 give rise to the basic philosophy of vedanta that Maharishi 
 originally spoke about and taught.
 
 And in my own life experiences, I haven't run across people who speak 
 of anything like witnessing or seem to be able to relate to it.  No 
 one I know, at least.  I'm happy enough with this personality but it 
 seems to be more like a torus, or a bagel, and the hole of the bagel 
 is where I am (or something like that -- I've tried to reply to 
 this thread and the one that preceeded it several times now and I 
 can't seem to be able to express what it is that I feel about the 
 subject, but this is my best try so far).
 
 Anyway, thanks, and a great discussion.
 
 Marek


Sorry for the delay in response Marek.  I also wrote a long answer to
your other thoughtful post on this topic a while back and when I lost
it I couldn't get myself to reconstruct it again.  But you have really
gotten my intent in this thread, a fresh look at what the term
witnessing means and where we place our self identity.  I don't
believe that the assumptions in the yoga systems are the best we can
do.  They seem to start with assumptions rather than conclude them
from the experiences.  I believe we are in the infancy of
understanding what these experiences mean and believe that the best
understanding is ahead of us.  I'm glad non believers like Sam Harris
are continuing an interest in meditation in a secular context combined
with neuro-biology study.  

Assuming that most people are functioning in a fundamentally different
way from  experienced meditators doesn't seem right to me since
meditators (myself included) don't seem to exhibit enough difference
in behavior to warrant that assumption.  It seems to be a matter of
emphasis of attention for parts of ourselves that we all share.  But
if a person finds value in skewing their attention to one aspect of
themselves and finds personal value and meaning in that, who am I to
personally question that choice?

OTOH I'm not inclined to assume that they have gained any deeper
insight into the meaning of life than the Ethiopian immigrant who
served me lunch yesterday and who spent 8 years on prison for
political crimes.  He seemed to have a pretty profound grasp on
reality and was freely dispensing some very useful perspectives on the
value and meaning of life that had no relationship to the Vedic one.

I guess we all choosing our own values and meaning as we go along. 
And like the existentialists, I am adverse to pre-packaged assumptions
that claim to represent complete knowledge. 








 Comment below:
 
 **
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
  
Do you feel that it is your true nature or real self?  Why?
   
   If silence is more consistent than non-silence, how could you NOT
  identify it as being more real than non-silence?
  
  Perhaps that kind of consistency is not the only measure. 
  
  My sense of my self includes the silent part of my mind, but it is 
 not
  the only consistent part of my internal world.  I have other 
 personal
  tendencies that have been a part of me as long as I have known 
 myself.
   Just because a part of my mind can be awake during sleep doesn't 
 mean
  that is my identity.  In fact it retains nothing of what I value 
 about
  myself so it is definitely not the best aspect of who I am.
  
  Most meditators have adapted Maharishi's interpretation of what
  constitutes the self.  I am not arguing that you should stop if you
  enjoy that POV.  But I don't share it.  I interpret my experiences
  differently.  This identification is not a set thing, it is shaped 
 by
  pre-suppositional beliefs.  
  
  
  
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5
dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:

 Curtis writes in this, I don't share his (Maharishi's) view
 that the silence experienced in meditation is our true nature 
 or our
 real self.
 
 Ouch, is that right? True?

Without the belief system mindset experiencing the silence of
meditation is not obviously my true nature or real self.  
 It is
just a state of mind I can experience. I don't know what it 
 means but
I would not on my own assume it was a part of me that survives 
 death
for example, 

[FairfieldLife] Historians Rank the Presidents

[do.rflex]

C-SPAN released the results of its second Historians Survey of
Presidential Leadership, in which 65 presidential historians ranked
the 42 former occupants of the White House.

Key findings: Abraham Lincoln received top billing among the
historians, George Washington placed second, while spots three through
five were held by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry
Truman, in that order.

Of the more recent presidents, George W. Bush ranked 36, Bill Clinton
was at 15, Ronald Reagan was 10, George H.W. Bush was 18 and Jimmy
Carter was 25. 

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/C-SPANpresidentialsurveyPR021509.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   snip
Look at the person whose I'll just badger and insult 
them until they talk to me again behavior you are 
emulating on this forum. She's been running this
number for years, and as a result how many people 
still talk to her? 'Nuff said, I hope. 
   
   BTW, this is another Barry-fantasy, a twofold one.
 
 -
 [Restoring what Barry snipped, for the record:]
 
   First, I've always said what I feel like saying. If
   somebody wants to respond, fine. If not, also fine.
   (Same with ed. She'd behave the same way even if I
   wasn't on the forum.)
 -
 
... the number that's been run for years is
   Barry's wishful thinking that very few people talk
   to me. He hopes if he repeats it enough times, it will
   become true. But it isn't; the majority of the posters
   here do talk to me. And of those who don't, only a
   few posture that they're ignoring me. The others
   have nothing in particular to say to me, just as I
   have nothing in particular to say to them.
  
  Just to point out the levels of self-delusion
  working here, of Judy's posts so far this week,
  five have been spent badgering and insulting me,
  and another four *each* have been spent badgering 
  and insulting Vaj and Ruth. None of the people 
  being badgered and insulted have fallen for it
  and responded to her except for me, here, to 
  set the record straight about Judy's lies above.
  
  So far, only two of her total posts this week 
  have been replied to by ANYONE here, and the two 
  respondents were Lawson and enlightened_dawn11. 
  Ruth checked in on one thread, but only to 
  respond to Lawson, not Judy, and Kirk seems
  to have hit the Reply key once by accident, 
  because there was no content to his post. Or 
  perhaps that is all he thought she deserved.
  
  And yet Judy believes that the majority of
  posters here do talk to me.
 
 The majority of posters here do talk to me, as Barry
 knows. Obviously a little over a day's worth of
 postings from me is too small a sample to be even
 remotely meaningful, *especially* since, as Barry
 himself points out, most of them were commenting on
 posts by the few people who, as I noted, posture
 that they're ignoring me. *Of course* none of them
 responded; I wouldn't expect them to.
 
 So, in fact, Barry hasn't set a thing straight; he's
 just added to his long, long, LONG record of lies--
 which is what he inevitably does when *he's* been
 caught in a lie or lies, as the post of mine he's
 responding to did (as well as several of the others
 this weekend in which I commented on posts of his).

i did an informal analysis, and Barry is the one on FFL getting the 
least return for his effort. he writes the most words, and gets the 
least number of posts in response. no doubt because i and others can 
predict what Barry will write, even befor he writes it:

has to do with a new TMO initiative? just hang around for a day or 
two, and ol' reliable will be cranking out a hit piece on it, on why 
everyone thinks they are so special and they are really not (yawn) 
so special, because they only do it because they were TOLD TO 
(oooh..). 

has to do with a detailed discussion of higher states of 
conciousness? 1...2...3...here it comes, Barry's tired old saw on 
how there is no such thing, and if there was would they act like 
this, and what's so special about it, yammer, yammer, yammer- zzz 
zzz. 

as Barry himself said recently, I am a bullshit artist... yep, we 
smell ya a mile away.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:

 The problem with the premise is that the American 
 public wants instant payoff in a TV series. They
 often want to understand everything in the first or
 second episode. So that's tough for creators like
 Joss Whedon or Alan Ball or David Milch who like to
 take their time developing characterization and
 plot.
For me it is often about the arc of the episode.  If it doesn't quite 
take off then it loses me.  But I didn't like the arc in Fringe all that 
much but gave it a couple more episodes and it got better so I watch it 
regularly.  I expected Milch to be good and liked JFC and the episodes 
had good arcs.  There is some good writing out and production out 
there.  Burn Notice is like a guilty pleasure but last Thursday's was 
an exceptionally good episode.  CSI always gets me back because it 
isn't the cops are always right type of show because a lot of times 
they mess up and it has some running humor and personal stories too.  
What may be lacking from Dollhouse would be some of Whedon's 
characteristic humor.

That said, last night Sci-Fi played Splinters which was a critically 
praised horror flick that played some theaters last year.  Funny thing 
was as I was recording it the weekly At The Movies guys bashed the new 
version of Friday the 13th and in doing so praised Splinters as a 
innovative horror film.   The Sci-Fi version was bizarre because they 
bleeped out the f word so much that there was all this blank space but 
it IS a good film.   I don't think I've seen it on the shelves yet so 
this might have been a special deal.  Too bad it has to be censored in 
backward America.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:

 * Media piracy is a complex issue that cannot be 
 reduced to a simplistic Thou shalt not steal.
 As I've said many times, here in Spain I *have
 no other choice* if I want to see many movies
 and television. They won't be available here
 legally for six months to a year. The piracy
 exists because the producers have not been 
 smart enough yet to figure out Video On Demand
 effectively. If there had been a way to pay for
 this show, I would have done so. There is not.
 That is FOX's problem, not Joss' problem. He
 has already been paid. It's FOX that is trying
 to make money now, in the form of number of 
 viewers and the ads they can sell based on that
 number. If FOX had been smart enough to figure
 out a way to sell digital copies of the show,
 they wouldn't be so dependent on the number
 of eyeballs watching it on broadcast TV to
 make their money.
   
FOX has many if not all of their shows available VOD on the Internet.  
There was a power outage here which kept me from catching the first hour 
of 24 this season.  I caught up with it the following day VOD from FOX's 
website.  They have their own proprietary player which streams a very 
nice picture and is only interrupted by 15 second spots usually the same 
one.  The problem is it will only serve the files to IP addresses in the 
US and Canada.  FOX has had this for at least a couple year.  NBC 
charges a buck for their VOD.  YouTube is about to launch fee based 
views for people who want to sell their own movies and videos.  It might 
wind up being a source for those hard-to-find old films that you can't 
even find as torrents.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:

 TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  The problem with the premise is that the American 
  public wants instant payoff in a TV series. They
  often want to understand everything in the first or
  second episode. So that's tough for creators like
  Joss Whedon or Alan Ball or David Milch who like to
  take their time developing characterization and
  plot.
 
 For me it is often about the arc of the episode.  If it 
 doesn't quite take off then it loses me.  

I wasn't much taken with the arc of the
first episode of Dollhouse, but I'll give
it a few episodes to see if it can do better.

One of the things that interests me about its
premise is that in Santa Fe I knew people from 
Los Alamos (Sandia National Labs) who were 
working on similar technology. 

No, not the wiping one's brain completely and
implanting another personality and memories,
just the getting *rid* of memories thang. It
was considered a very high priority by the
Bush administration to come up with a more
effective date rape drug for soldiers.

The idea was to come up with something more
powerful and long-lasting than Rhohypnol that
would not knock the person out but would make
it impossible for them to remember anything 
that happened while the drug was active. The
idea was to use them on American soldiers so 
that they could send them into battle, they'd 
function perfectly well in battle for 2-3 days, 
but at the end of that time, they would remember 
nothing about it.

This was all because they found out that the
main cause of PTSD and battle fatigue in
soldiers was the memory of all the horrible
things they saw and did. And so their solution
to this problem was, Let's make it so they
can't remember.

Scary, eh?

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@...
wrote:

 On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  Just as a question, does anyone else see the
  fascination with this concert as a little sad?
 
 Yep, just thinking the same thing.
 
 Sal


Oh, how gloomy.

The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten
million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million I didn't
enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline. (Marvin the
robot)

[FairfieldLife] Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

By practicing a form of meditation like TM one can 'spiritualize'
their will, and only when the will has the power of the Spirit coming
from, and in, the heart will success be ensured.

A mere mental acknowledgment that one must change or an idealistic
thought that losing weight would be nice or whatever, is not enough,
it must come from the desire which resides in the heart, the essence
of who you truly are, not some mental idealism.

Whatever your Maya (devil) induced weakness leads you to do, perhaps
you have a eating disorder, or are prone to lust and pornography, the
prescription is the same.

By Spiritualizing the Will we mean contacting the source of all power
in your inner SELF or Soul,  combining that with the sincerity which
comes from the heart (desire) and one is invincible.

But contacting Spirit, alone, is not enough, one must also attach
their *will* and their *effort* to the power one experiences during
either meditation or even prayer, *sincerity* is the operative word
here. Sincerity comes from the heart, the seat of the soul.

So, idealism, conjoined with Soul power, and supported by sincere
effort, creates the chemistry leading to success, for whatever goal
you may have. 

As it says in the bible:  

Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but with
God all things are possible.  Matthew 19:26   (Today's sermon :-)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

[snip]

 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
 of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  

that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
can't help it!)

 To use an analogy, I need my
 spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
 attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
 attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
 
  
[grate.swan} 
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 

*Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)

[lots snipped]

[FairfieldLife] God relax panda tree burrs

[Duveyoung]

Read the following title of a famous children's story:

GOD RELAX PANDA TREE BURRS

This title means nothing to most persons when first encountered.

Now, think about the well known story of a small girl with golden hair
and her troubles with a family of furry creatures.

Does the title mean anything to you yet?

Okay, just in case, here's the title of the story when directly
translated from the above:  Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

The first six sentences of this story are written below in this strange
form of language.  Your consciousness exercise is to translate them as
we have translated the title above.  Here they are:

Wands apron at I'm, share wasp alit toe grill. Dish lit toe grill hat
lung go den bland coils. Beak cost offer lung go den bland coils, purple
culled hare God Relax. Won fond moaning, God Relax trolled inn two hay
fur rest necks tour howls. Beef oar lung, God Relax wasp lust. Cow fuzz
sheep goring two fainter whey hum?

The rest of the story is provided below, but first,

Is there any meaning actually contained in the words of the sentences?

Why is it that the words only have to faintly suggest or sound close
enough for me to assign their real meaning to them?  Why is my
intellect so forgiving?

When I read a normal English sentence, is my intellect also
forgiving?  How much am I helping out when I read a sentence?  How
often am I filling in what is supposed to be there?

How often in my daily life do I project meaning onto sensory input that
simply is not there?  Am I bending life's input to fit a story I
already know and am bent on telling to myself? If so, how does the
story end?

Do I assume that the input of life really is my interpretation based
on my best guess?

Is it possible that I could suddenly see that life, as I presently
know it, could be quite a different story?  Is life's secret just
waiting for me right before my eyes?  If I knew the true story of
life, could I make this old life suddenly pop into a grander tale?

My imagination is powerful enough that these faintly suggestive
sentences could trigger my interpretive abilities, but what chance do I
have of reinterpreting input that is not in the least faint but
instead is traditional and conditioned input that, right from birth,
I have been taught to know to have a very precise meaning?  Am I strong
enough to see things with a clear eye?  Can I see a ball roll across
a floor with the same awe as a seven month old baby?  What story does
the baby tell about the ball?

Who wrote my personal story?  Why do I want to tell it?

Now here is the rest of the story for those of you who want to have more
aha experiences.  Enjoy.

Rafter ha lung twine, God Relax frowned alit toe cod dodge. Inn slide
dot cod dodge, God Relax fond tree bows aft pour ridge. Hare lung fur
rest troll hat mead God Relax berry hung glee. Caulk shucks lee, God
Relax toasted dipper age inn debug boll. Disparage wash toot hurt! Show
God Relax tested boar cage frontal udder bolt, aunt disparage wash two
colt. Fond dally, God Relax trusted disparage frump deterred bulge,
audit wasp juice ripe. Beef oar Yukon blank, God Relax deflowered
disparage. Aft oar treating, God Relax sadden as mall chore. Dismal jar
grumbled true pits! God Relax felt hoard hone deaf our. Locking err
owned, God Relax spurted abet roam. Dare wore tree bets witch pillars.
Clam ink win delighter bet God Relax falter seep. Wind God Relax worse
leaping inner bat, twin comb tree hock glee ferry creep chairs. Daze
creep chairs wore burrs.

Delighter bore sat, Soon booty ache almond purr edge!

Departer born shod, Shack displace ought!

Deem Martyr burn shed, Brogue yore char, tooth! God Relax hoard debars
load verses. Quack lick affix, sheep lapped true abet roam dwindle, hand
debars ware how tough lock.

MURAL: INDIA VENT OFT RUBBLE RUNT QUACK LICK AFFIX!

[FairfieldLife] Valentine Day message from Russell Simmons mentions TM, CBE, C.I.D.A., Maharishi Institute Eco-Campus for Africa

[Dick Mays]

THE HUFFINGOTN POST
 Russell Simmons
Editor-in-Chief of Global Grind
Posted February 13, 2009 | 12:13 PM (EST)

What Inspires You?

Valentine's Day is here and we are thinking about love. Not the 
passionate, intense, anxiety-producing am-I-worthy/are-they-worthy 
kind of love. Not the dim the lights, cue the Al Green music, heart 
pounding, getting lucky kind of love that can leave you electrified 
or electrocuted by the object of your desire.


Today we are thinking about compassionate love. The kind that comes 
from empathy, affection, care, trust, and, above all, a shared 
respect for all people. This is the kind of love we are after, the 
kind you see when an elderly couple spend their time joyfully helping 
each other through aches and pains that escalate to terminal illness 
and end-of-life small gestures to insure that dignity and love are 
the last things they share. The kind of love that is everyday 
business as usual for teachers, physical therapists, nurses, 
well-diggers, and just about anyone of any profession who has the 
ability to be kind in handling their affairs no matter the chaos they 
may be living in.


We are thinking about the question What inspires you? and we are 
inspired by compassionate love. With great love all things are 
possible. This is true. In Mahatma Gandhi's words, love is the 
strongest force the world possesses, and yet it is the humblest 
imaginable. Mother Teresa spent her life working to give a voice to 
the poor and to promoting love as an essential ingredient to life. 
Her life devoted to the poor was among the richest in human history. 
Nelson Mandela spent 27 years imprisoned because of his actions to 
end the loveless and dehumanizing oppression of Apartheid. After 
surviving circumstances and abuses that would seem impossible to 
endure, this giant among leaders and humanitarians presided over the 
transition of South Africa to a post-Apartheid democracy with justice 
and compassion. In Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela wrote of love, No 
one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, 
or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if 
they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes 
more naturally to the human heart than its opposite. Mother Teresa 
and Nelson Mandela both were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and Gandhi 
sadly was overlooked for that honor, but we can safely say we believe 
these three know their stuff and that love is central to human 
rights, civil disobedience, ending poverty, and achieving peace.


Compassionate love binds people together. It demands action. It's not 
idealistic and you have to be willing to free yourself of personal 
concerns for a time to get it. Granted, it's not easy for us to step 
outside of our material needs for a minute and show a true level of 
concern for the lives of others. We have to set aside what we think 
and how we'd handle a given situation, and instead meet people in 
their worlds with all of their unfamiliar mystery, horror and beauty. 
The love happens when we find ourselves bonding with people whom we 
feel a great connection to yet we maintain our own separate world of 
experiences, perspectives and obstacles. The love comes from us 
knowing their lives are not ours, but we want to put effort and 
movement behind understanding their problems and how they are asking 
for help. Compassionate love thumbs its nose at empty gestures. It's 
going to require a little bit of sacrifice and understanding you 
aren't in charge, but what you get in return will leave you feeling 
you've just robbed somebody. The compassionate love you give will get 
you things that are difficult to buy - purpose, creativity, genuine 
community, and maybe inner peace.


It's with compassionate love that we are inspired by C.I.D.A. 
(Community and Individual Development Association) in Johannesburg, 
South Africa. It's the first beneficiary of the Diamond Empowerment 
Fund (D.E.F.), www.diamondmempowerment.org, founded in 2007 to raise 
funds for empowerment through education in African nations where 
diamonds are a natural resource. The Green Bracelet is the symbol of 
D.E.F.'s cause.


C.I.D.A. started 20 years ago teaching free Transcendental Meditation 
for disadvantaged communities in South Africa. It launched CIDA City 
Campus in 2000 as the first virtually free degree-granting college 
for the huge population of bright high school graduates unable to 
afford the costs of higher education. CIDA's program combined the 
stress management and cognitive learning features of 
consciousness-based education with an academic focus on a business 
degree program. Vocational training programs for students who were 
not yet prepared for higher education were also offered. Equally 
important to the program was giving service to the school and to the 
student's own community as fundamental principles. The school has 
grown and we see CIDA City Campus graduates getting well-paying 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Final footnote on Russell Simmons

[Dick Mays]

Forwarded:

Final comment: In 2007 USA Today named Russell Simmons one of the 
Top 25 Most Influential People of the Past 20 Years. I happened to 
turn on the TV the other night and saw Russell Simmons being honored. 
Hip-hop music producer and businessman Russell Simmons received the 
NAACP's prestigious Vanguard trophy for helping to increase 
understanding of racial and social issues. Simmons, 51, the 
co-founder of Def Jam Recordings, was cited for using the power of 
hip-hop culture to inspire American youth. He joins past Vanguard 
recipients Aretha Franklin, Prince, Steven Spielberg and Stanley 
Kramer. (Russell practices Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation 
technique, and spoke at the National Summit on Children's Health and 
Education 
http://www.stressfreesummit.org/http://www.stressfreesummit.org/ 
sponsored by the David Lynch Foundation 
http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/.)

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
 [snip]
 
  The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
  work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
  of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
  the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
  is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
  and interests that give my life meaning.  
 
 that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
 being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
 can't help it!)

Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
aspect of our humanity.  We are aware of our own meanings.  The
linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
itself.  The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
for doesn't have to exist.

So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
outside the process of being aware of it. 

 
  To use an analogy, I need my
  spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
  attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
  attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
  
   
 [grate.swan} 
   And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
   identify with that -- as described as such. 
 
 *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)

This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
actually exist.

I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
piece. It is not my experience that just because the silent part can
witness activity of my mind, it is somehow the container of my
awareness.  That may be more of a function of memory. (reference the
great movie Momento) 



 
 [lots snipped]

[FairfieldLife] A theory of habit (Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[Duveyoung]

BillyG,

Sounds to me like you're trying to find a way to make samyama an
operative dynamic of daily life.

When it comes to thinking oneself out of a problem, how about this
as a rule of thumb:  imagine-up a daydream of a scenario in which the
problem is solved.  Do this on purpose while awake but with eyes
closed -- in this dream you see your problem resolved for your dream
self.  Now, however faintly or clearly you get this dream manifested
in your mind, put your attention on the FEELINGS that you get when the
dream character's resolution occurs. They will be more subtle than the
imagery and plot, but they'll amplify with practice.

This is a powerful way to re-wire the brain.

Example:  you want to stop smoking.

Practice:  imagine yourself in some scene in which you are a person
who has achieved enough clarity to give up smoking, and pay attention
to the emotion that underlies/goes-with/attends/fits-well this dream
character's clarity.  How it feels to be something is more important
than how the intellect describes something.  If you can get jiggy with
a feeling, you're far more invested in making that emotion an all time
background dynamic.

Doing this is practicing the art of World Class mood making, and by
doing so, the brain gets more and more able to go there.  Where that
is is the POV of the person you're aiming to become, and if you can
bring the emotions to mind, the intellect will be helplessly involved
in creating a real-life situation in which this emotion can find a
proper setting.  If you get the emotion, you'll find the intellect
is addicted to trying to arrange things such that harmony with the
soundtrack of the mind is realized.  

It is the heart that sings, right?  

I can resolve to do things all day long and never do a thing, but if I
can target the emotion I'll have upon success, then I've got my radar
locked onto a passion that can become, as if, the basis for a Wiccan
invocation.

Yeah, I'm an ooogabganist.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 By practicing a form of meditation like TM one can 'spiritualize'
 their will, and only when the will has the power of the Spirit coming
 from, and in, the heart will success be ensured.
 
 A mere mental acknowledgment that one must change or an idealistic
 thought that losing weight would be nice or whatever, is not enough,
 it must come from the desire which resides in the heart, the essence
 of who you truly are, not some mental idealism.
 
 Whatever your Maya (devil) induced weakness leads you to do, perhaps
 you have a eating disorder, or are prone to lust and pornography, the
 prescription is the same.
 
 By Spiritualizing the Will we mean contacting the source of all power
 in your inner SELF or Soul,  combining that with the sincerity which
 comes from the heart (desire) and one is invincible.
 
 But contacting Spirit, alone, is not enough, one must also attach
 their *will* and their *effort* to the power one experiences during
 either meditation or even prayer, *sincerity* is the operative word
 here. Sincerity comes from the heart, the seat of the soul.
 
 So, idealism, conjoined with Soul power, and supported by sincere
 effort, creates the chemistry leading to success, for whatever goal
 you may have. 
 
 As it says in the bible:  
 
 Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but with
 God all things are possible.  Matthew 19:26   (Today's sermon :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dollhouse

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote:
   
 TurquoiseB wrote:
 
 The problem with the premise is that the American 
 public wants instant payoff in a TV series. They
 often want to understand everything in the first or
 second episode. So that's tough for creators like
 Joss Whedon or Alan Ball or David Milch who like to
 take their time developing characterization and
 plot.
   
 For me it is often about the arc of the episode.  If it 
 doesn't quite take off then it loses me.  
 

 I wasn't much taken with the arc of the
 first episode of Dollhouse, but I'll give
 it a few episodes to see if it can do better.

 One of the things that interests me about its
 premise is that in Santa Fe I knew people from 
 Los Alamos (Sandia National Labs) who were 
 working on similar technology. 

 No, not the wiping one's brain completely and
 implanting another personality and memories,
 just the getting *rid* of memories thang. It
 was considered a very high priority by the
 Bush administration to come up with a more
 effective date rape drug for soldiers.

 The idea was to come up with something more
 powerful and long-lasting than Rhohypnol that
 would not knock the person out but would make
 it impossible for them to remember anything 
 that happened while the drug was active. The
 idea was to use them on American soldiers so 
 that they could send them into battle, they'd 
 function perfectly well in battle for 2-3 days, 
 but at the end of that time, they would remember 
 nothing about it.

 This was all because they found out that the
 main cause of PTSD and battle fatigue in
 soldiers was the memory of all the horrible
 things they saw and did. And so their solution
 to this problem was, Let's make it so they
 can't remember.

 Scary, eh?
That's flat out awful and should be banned.  Imagine if you were 
kidnapped and turned into some kind of fighting machine (we're probably 
too old to a candidate for that fortunately).  I can't imagine that they 
would actually be any good at strategies under that kind of drug.  They 
would probably just be cannon fodder so that the country could brag 
about how many troops they have in the field.  That would sort of be 
like the zombie movies where you know the zombies would be so screwed up 
they wouldn't be much of a threat.

I love it when you know from the first scene that the film is going to 
be good.  And that happened with Splinters.  They with a shot (almost 
cliche) of a run down off the road gas station starting at the sign and 
panning down.  It just had that feel it was going to be good.

Another thing that the At the Movies guys said that resonated with me 
was that International after a season of bad horror and action films 
(many watered down to PG-13) was like a 1970's thriller something like 
the late Sidney Pollack would do.  And you know I think the 1970s were 
the best era in film so far.   A friend wanted to go on Friday but I 
hate opening days and Friday would have been worse going into a 3 day 
weekend.  Then he wanted to go on Monday and I pointed out it was a 3 
day weekend so we'll probably see it on Weds.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
  [snip]
  
   The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
doesn't
   work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
   of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
is not
   the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
But it
   is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
personality
   and interests that give my life meaning.  
  
  that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
  being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
  can't help it!)
 
 Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
 principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
 aspect of our humanity.  

Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)

 We are aware of our own meanings.  

Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)

 The
 linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
 imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
 itself.  

It doesn't rule it out either.

The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
consciousness).

I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
sensations  dreams). 

The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
(and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
is, after all, really, really, well...hard!

 The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
 validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
 what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
 linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
 just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
 for doesn't have to exist.
 
 So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
 to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
 outside the process of being aware of it. 
 
  
   To use an analogy, I need my
   spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
   attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
   attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my
buck. 
   

  [grate.swan} 
And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who
would
identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)
 
 This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
 who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
 linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
 actually exist.
 
 I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
 our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
 I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
 pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
 likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
 piece. It is not my experience that just because the silent part can
 witness activity of my mind, it is somehow the container of my
 awareness.  That may be more of a function of memory. (reference the
 great movie Momento) 
 
 
 
  
  [lots snipped]
 

[FairfieldLife] A theory of habit (Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote:

 BillyG,
 
 Sounds to me like you're trying to find a way to make samyama an
 operative dynamic of daily life.
 
 When it comes to thinking oneself out of a problem, how about this
 as a rule of thumb:  imagine-up a daydream of a scenario in which the
 problem is solved.  Do this on purpose while awake but with eyes
 closed -- in this dream you see your problem resolved for your dream
 self.  Now, however faintly or clearly you get this dream manifested
 in your mind, put your attention on the FEELINGS that you get when the
 dream character's resolution occurs. They will be more subtle than the
 imagery and plot, but they'll amplify with practice.
 
 This is a powerful way to re-wire the brain.
 
 Example:  you want to stop smoking.
 
 Practice:  imagine yourself in some scene in which you are a person
 who has achieved enough clarity to give up smoking, and pay attention
 to the emotion that underlies/goes-with/attends/fits-well this dream
 character's clarity.  How it feels to be something is more important
 than how the intellect describes something.  If you can get jiggy with
 a feeling, you're far more invested in making that emotion an all time
 background dynamic.
 
 Doing this is practicing the art of World Class mood making, and by
 doing so, the brain gets more and more able to go there.  Where that
 is is the POV of the person you're aiming to become, and if you can
 bring the emotions to mind, the intellect will be helplessly involved
 in creating a real-life situation in which this emotion can find a
 proper setting.  If you get the emotion, you'll find the intellect
 is addicted to trying to arrange things such that harmony with the
 soundtrack of the mind is realized.  
 
 It is the heart that sings, right?  
 
 I can resolve to do things all day long and never do a thing, but if I
 can target the emotion I'll have upon success, then I've got my radar
 locked onto a passion that can become, as if, the basis for a Wiccan
 invocation.
 
 Yeah, I'm an ooogabganist.
 
 Edg

Yes, beautiful, it's called 'dreaming true' the substance of hope.
Vision and ideals, when true, (and sometimes not) are inevitably
fulfilled in time. Without vision (ideals and dreams) life has no
direction, progress or goal.

The emotions, as you so rightly pointed out, command your behavior as
they are of the substance of your own Being, the heart. We must engage
the heart and feelings in what we do and not merely dictate it by the
mind. 

That's the transformative power of sincerity, it actually transforms
the character and not merely suppresses it into submission. 

He who cherishes a beautiful vision. a lofty ideal in his 'heart',
will one day realize it.  James Allen   As a Man Thinketh

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... 

 I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
 possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
 way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
 world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness,
whether they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my
feelings, sensations  dreams). 

That sounds a little depersonalized to me.  How was your lunch?  The
guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.  

 
 The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
 different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
 (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
problem is, after all, really, really, well...hard!

I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
bodies and brains have something to do with this.  I believe our
consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.  ( I
experiment with bourbon to check occasionally.  There is a definite
connection!)  Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!) 



wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
   [snip]
   
The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
 doesn't
work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner
state
of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
 is not
the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
 But it
is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
 personality
and interests that give my life meaning.  
   
   that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
   being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
   can't help it!)
  
  Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
  principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
  aspect of our humanity.  
 
 Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)
 
  We are aware of our own meanings.  
 
 Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)
 
  The
  linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
  imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
  itself.  
 
 It doesn't rule it out either.
 
 The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
 Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
 self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
 consciousness).
 
 I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
 possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
 way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
 world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
 they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
 sensations  dreams). 
 
 The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
 different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
 (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
 is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
 
  The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
  validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
  what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
  linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
  just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have words
  for doesn't have to exist.
  
  So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities conform
  to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the process
  outside the process of being aware of it. 
  
   
To use an analogy, I need my
spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my
 buck. 

 
   [grate.swan} 
 And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who
 would
 identify with that -- as described as such. 
   
   *Who* would be doing the identifying? (Sorry, there I go again!)
  
  This was Grate.swan's phrase.  But for me, you are using the word
  who out of context here.  Although we can construct separate
  linguistic terms for our self, that doesn't mean these parts
  actually exist.
  
  I am rejecting that the Vedic/Hindu assertion that the silent part of
  our mind experienced in meditation is somehow our true self.  The
  I in this sentence refers to the conglomerate of awareness that can
  pay attention to the quiet aspect of my mind if I choose, but is more
  likely to attend to the part of me that is figuring out my next guitar
  piece. It is not my experience that 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[enlightened_dawn11]

well said. and by engaging this spiritualizing of the will, or 
perhaps combining faith and desire, however we look at it, it grows 
with practice. 

i recall when i was younger feeling somewhat tentative and alone in 
my desire to transform Maya into my life supporting reality. 
sometimes it felt like all of my prayer and the transformation i 
wanted so badly would never happen. it felt so thin and weak. slowly 
and through much application of the will and the heart, the 
positive, intimate, life affirming world i have awakened to is 
recognizable, familiar and fulfilling.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 By practicing a form of meditation like TM one can 'spiritualize'
 their will, and only when the will has the power of the Spirit 
coming
 from, and in, the heart will success be ensured.
 
 A mere mental acknowledgment that one must change or an idealistic
 thought that losing weight would be nice or whatever, is not 
enough,
 it must come from the desire which resides in the heart, the 
essence
 of who you truly are, not some mental idealism.
 
 Whatever your Maya (devil) induced weakness leads you to do, 
perhaps
 you have a eating disorder, or are prone to lust and pornography, 
the
 prescription is the same.
 
 By Spiritualizing the Will we mean contacting the source of all 
power
 in your inner SELF or Soul,  combining that with the sincerity 
which
 comes from the heart (desire) and one is invincible.
 
 But contacting Spirit, alone, is not enough, one must also attach
 their *will* and their *effort* to the power one experiences during
 either meditation or even prayer, *sincerity* is the operative word
 here. Sincerity comes from the heart, the seat of the soul.
 
 So, idealism, conjoined with Soul power, and supported by sincere
 effort, creates the chemistry leading to success, for whatever goal
 you may have. 
 
 As it says in the bible:  
 
 Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but 
with
 God all things are possible.  Matthew 19:26   (Today's sermon :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_re...@... wrote:

 well said. and by engaging this spiritualizing of the will, or 
 perhaps combining faith and desire, however we look at it, it grows 
 with practice. 
 
 i recall when i was younger feeling somewhat tentative and alone in 
 my desire to transform Maya into my life supporting reality. 
 sometimes it felt like all of my prayer and the transformation i 
 wanted so badly would never happen. it felt so thin and weak. slowly 
 and through much application of the will and the heart, the 
 positive, intimate, life affirming world i have awakened to is 
 recognizable, familiar and fulfilling.

Excellent, a few years ago I crossed this bridge of 'self effort'
opposed to TM only. It seemed to me I wasn't getting good advice, it
wasn't until I started exercising my own will and sincerity, that I
started making real progress.

Have you even known morally lazy meditators? I have, as if meditation
alone was going to transform them and almost as if effort was a
'no-no', it's totally absurd what some TM'ers have been lead to
think.but then I guess without any ethical guidelines that is to
be expected, sad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[enlightened_dawn11]

yes, even though the practice of TM is as effortless as possible, 
the integration of the experience of the transcendent into daily 
life is anything but. although many seem to have forgotten about it, 
the Maharishi, especially in his earlier sermons, spoke about 
dipping the cloth and then engaging in -tremendous activity- to make 
it colorfast. this idea that we would all somehow magically drift 
into enlightenment is incorrect thinking.

thanks for posting about this. this spiritualizing of the will is 
something i have been doing for years, but hadn't really thought 
until now how it could be expressed.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  well said. and by engaging this spiritualizing of the will, or 
  perhaps combining faith and desire, however we look at it, it 
grows 
  with practice. 
  
  i recall when i was younger feeling somewhat tentative and alone 
in 
  my desire to transform Maya into my life supporting reality. 
  sometimes it felt like all of my prayer and the transformation i 
  wanted so badly would never happen. it felt so thin and weak. 
slowly 
  and through much application of the will and the heart, the 
  positive, intimate, life affirming world i have awakened to is 
  recognizable, familiar and fulfilling.
 
 Excellent, a few years ago I crossed this bridge of 'self effort'
 opposed to TM only. It seemed to me I wasn't getting good advice, 
it
 wasn't until I started exercising my own will and sincerity, that I
 started making real progress.
 
 Have you even known morally lazy meditators? I have, as if 
meditation
 alone was going to transform them and almost as if effort was a
 'no-no', it's totally absurd what some TM'ers have been lead to
 think.but then I guess without any ethical guidelines that is 
to
 be expected, sad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:
snip
 Have you even known morally lazy meditators? I have,
 as if meditation alone was going to transform them
 and almost as if effort was a 'no-no', it's totally
 absurd what some TM'ers have been lead to think.
 but then I guess without any ethical guidelines that
 is to be expected, sad.

Nonsense. There's no lack of ethical guidelines in
this world. MMY didn't feel the need to come out
with his own set when there were so many already out
there. As you know, he recommended that if one needs
guidelines, one follow the laws of the land, the
prescriptions of one's religion, and the advice of
one's elders, plus Never do what you think might be
wrong.

A morally lazy meditator is just a morally lazy
person who meditates, ignoring (in the case of TMers)
MMY's excellent advice.

[FairfieldLife] Theology after Vedanta, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

[Rick Archer]

A letter sent to 21st Century Bookstore, here in FF

 

The following review was submitted by one of our long time customers and
former Fairfield resident Carey Turnbull

Tony,
I enjoy the reviews that you and Len write. In that vein would it be 
appropriate to recommend a book I believe I ordered thru 21st Century 
Bookstore about a year ago, and that I believe is right up the alley 
of the bookstore's clientele? 

 http://21stbooks.com/page/21stbooks/prod/vl7959 Theology after Vedanta,
by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. 
The author is a Jesuit priest and therefore to some extent an outsider to
the Vedic tradition but his read is one that demonstrates a sensitivity to
and admiration for Advaita. His title is Theology After Vedanta precisely
because of the transformative value he finds in its study. Advaita
philosophy is familiar territory to most of your readership because most of
them are long time students of it, primarily due to Shankara's relation to
http://www.21stbooks.com/page/21stbooks/SRCH/SearchField/SUBJECT/Search/Mah
arishi+Mahesh+Yogi Maharishi's background. I found the book enormously
informative on a topic that has remained to me quite opaque over the many
years of my involvement with Advaita, and that is the chronological
development of the Vedas and the various aspects of Vedic literature, and
the chronology of the development of, and relation to each other of, the
systems of Indian philosophy, including of course Buddhism. Clooney traces
this arc as he explores Shankara's commentaries that set down the tenants of
Advaita in the context of those competing philosophical views. What are the
Vedas, how does Indian philosophy develop afterward, who were Jaimini and
the Mimamsakas, when and how were the Upanishads authored, who was Veda
Vyasa, when and in what context did he write the Brahma Sutras. All that as
the backdrop to an erudite look at Vedanta philosophy. As they might say on
QVC, that and more. Satsang of the highest order and intellectually
fascinating.

Carey Turnbull

 

 

Call us at 800-593-2665 or 641-472-5105 . Email us at
mailto:i...@21stbooks.com i...@21stbooks.com

 

 

Call us at 800-593-2665 or 641-472-5105 . Email us at
mailto:i...@21stbooks.com i...@21stbooks.com

 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ 
 
  I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
  possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
  way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
  world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness,
 whether they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my
 feelings, sensations  dreams). 
 
 That sounds a little depersonalized to me.  How was your lunch?  The
 guy who can answer that is the the guy I mean.  

Ha! That guy's gone. Was that me?

But I agree. It IS a little depersonalized. The problem with my feel
for how things are is in explaining how there is more than one *self*,
more than one identity.

  The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
  different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
  (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard*
 problem is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
 
 I think we have some pretty compelling evidence that our separate
 bodies and brains have something to do with this.  I believe our
 consciousness is an emergent quality of our brains activity.  

OK. But I think this is pure faith on your part. I put it to you
that we have no understanding whatsoever about what consciousness is,
least of all how it emerges. What we have is hubris over Science. And
in this, I don't think you are with me in how I feel about objects of
consciousness. My objects are your subjective states. 

 ( I
 experiment with bourbon to check occasionally.  There is a definite
 connection!)  

Yes bourbon definitely affects the objects of consciousness!

 Assuming that you might wake up as someone else without
 swapping brains seems fanciful. (But a great movie premise!) 

Where did you get your brain ideas? Do you consider that they be wrong?

In what sense is the brain you have the *same* as the brain you had
thirty years ago? All the molecules have changed. The patterns have
changed. Are you not the same person as thirty years ago? (Just trying
to rumble your assumption of materialism!)

 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@
wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:

[snip]

 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts
  doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner
 state
 of identity.  And by saying that the silent quality of my mind
  is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it. 
  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my
  personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  

that give my life meaning - to *whom*? Which parts of your inner
being get meaned to? (Sorry. I know, I'm being facetious. But I
can't help it!)
   
   Thanks for continuing the thought.  Following Decart's first
   principles that I think therefor I am, self awareness is a primary
   aspect of our humanity.  
  
  Yes, that's reasonable (following Descartes)
  
   We are aware of our own meanings.  
  
  Er.. that's gone somewhere else! (following Descartes)
  
   The
   linguistic convention that we use the phrase I am aware Does not
   imply that there is some hidden element of I beyond our awareness
   itself.  
  
  It doesn't rule it out either.
  
  The in itself quite distinct form the for itself (following
  Sartre, in turn following Descartes) is the BIG mystery of
  self-identity IMO (and is also related to the the hard problem of
  consciousness).
  
  I don't think I *am* anything - I prefer to think that I am the
  possibility of being/experiencing something (anything?). In some odd
  way my self is the negative pole to the *positive* of the objective
  world (objective here meaning all objects of consciousness, whether
  they be the sun, moon  stars, or beefburgers, or my feelings,
  sensations  dreams). 
  
  The BIG problem with my way of looking at things is - why am I
  different from you? Why do I wake up as the same self every morning
  (and not, by chance, someone else? Or perhaps I do? The *hard* problem
  is, after all, really, really, well...hard!
  
   The whole concept of 'meaning in one's life only have
   validity within the framework of our own chosen standards.  To ask
   what meaning life has in a more general universal way is a
   linguistic error.  The words don't go together with a valid meaning
   just because we can construct the sentence.  Everything we have
words
   for doesn't have to exist.
   
   So I am aware of my standards and how well my life activities
conform
   to them.  I don't have a need for anything else to oversee the
process
   outside the process of being aware 

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
 ME
   
   I do and it isn't ED. My identity is not the silent quality of
my mind
   that exists in my activity.  That is not a self evident experience. 
   It takes a belief system to support it.  Just because I have a
silent
   quality of my mind doesn't mean that is the part I identify as my
   self.  For me it is the least interesting quality of my mind.  Not
   that is has no uses. But my identity lie with the parts of me that I
   value most.
  
  Interesting post. If I may ask, if you are agreeable to share, what
 is the part of you that you most value? (of course there is a quick,
  obvious answer - but beyond that.) 
 
 Sorry for the delay in response.  The question of our self identity
 really interests me, and I appreciate your weighing in on it.  I also
 appreciate that in your joke your referred the the most obvious answer
 for my most valued part as the quick answer rather than the
 shortest answer! (The rumors that past girlfriends have used the
 phrase hung like a field mouse in their descriptions caused me a lot
 of bad press that I would like to avoid.)


 
 The approach of cutting a person's inner qualities into parts doesn't
 work too well for me in discussing what I value about my inner state
 of identity. 

Yes, parts was  part of what I was exploring. (There is a good joke
there, but I cannot craft it well, so I will just chuckle like Beavis
and move on). 

And as with parts I have trouble with identity and wonder if this
concept is in itself a bogus and grand detour if not imaginary.
Identify requires a subject and object. Perhaps there should be a
warning label on the word, beware, you  are ending a huge trap from
which the best have become ensnarled). Beyond breaking life into
three (artificial) parts, why even the need for identity?   

Why settle for a part and why settle for identity? Why even settle for
I. 

How can a part have any meaning outside of the whole? 

DNA, evolution, the big bang, curved time-space, vibrating strings and
100 billion neural connections are.  Enough said (if not too much
already). 

Why do we try to sniff out meaning everywhere (the image of dogs comes
to mind). While not a huge figure in my life, having recently reread
some Camus -- isn't being happy as we push the rock up the hill
enough? And happy to see it rumble to the valley floor?

While this may be indulgent and abstract -- where are we left if we
let go of even the concept of identity, parts and meaning?



 And by saying that the silent quality of my mind is not
 the most interesting part I don't mean that I don't value it.  But it
 is the parts of my inner being that are associated with my personality
 and interests that give my life meaning.  To use an analogy, I need my
 spinal chord, but it is kind of a given that I don't pay much
 attention to.  It is the more self reflective cortex that gets my
 attention and gives me the most conscious neuronal bang for my buck. 
 
  
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
  Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
  salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
  you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
  feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
  seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
  Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
  descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
  be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
  correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
  experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
  describe inner states completely.
 
 This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
 without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
 you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework with a healthy
 dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't.  I think I am
 still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
 inner value.  
  
  
   I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a
universal
   truth.  
  
  Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
  Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
  perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
  true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
  large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
  own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
  true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.
 
 Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 snip
  Have you even known morally lazy meditators? I have,
  as if meditation alone was going to transform them
  and almost as if effort was a 'no-no', it's totally
  absurd what some TM'ers have been lead to think.
  but then I guess without any ethical guidelines that
  is to be expected, sad.
 
 Nonsense. There's no lack of ethical guidelines in
 this world. MMY didn't feel the need to come out
 with his own set when there were so many already out
 there. As you know, he recommended that if one needs
 guidelines, one follow the laws of the land, the
 prescriptions of one's religion, and the advice of
 one's elders, plus Never do what you think might be
 wrong.
 
 A morally lazy meditator is just a morally lazy
 person who meditates, ignoring (in the case of TMers)
 MMY's excellent advice.

I think your point is well taken, even though what MMY said was on the
margins...it was there!  Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete system of spiritual
unfoldment?  Yes? That it, TM contains NO ethical guidelines per se,
such as Yama and NiYama.

Your point is that since MMY recommended other's guidelines One's
Religion and your own intuition) that is sufficient...correct? If so,
that is what I have been saying.

Yes, taken with MMY's 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  snip
   Have you even known morally lazy meditators? I have,
   as if meditation alone was going to transform them
   and almost as if effort was a 'no-no', it's totally
   absurd what some TM'ers have been lead to think.
   but then I guess without any ethical guidelines that
   is to be expected, sad.
  
  Nonsense. There's no lack of ethical guidelines in
  this world. MMY didn't feel the need to come out
  with his own set when there were so many already out
  there. As you know, he recommended that if one needs
  guidelines, one follow the laws of the land, the
  prescriptions of one's religion, and the advice of
  one's elders, plus Never do what you think might be
  wrong.
  
  A morally lazy meditator is just a morally lazy
  person who meditates, ignoring (in the case of TMers)
  MMY's excellent advice.
 
 I think your point is well taken, even though what
 MMY said was on the margins...it was there!

On the margins?? It was a whole section in SBAL,
and TM teachers certainly heard a lot about it
during TTC, from what they said.

  Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
 agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete
 system of spiritual unfoldment?

Depends on how you define a complete system of
spiritual unfoldment. No system of spiritual
unfoldment can live your life for you; you have
to do that. You have to do that anyway, whether
you're following some system of spiritual
unfoldment or not.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltabl...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  And silent quality of the mind is kind a snoozer for me. Who would
  identify with that -- as described as such. 
  
  I find a natural affinity for what I internally hazily refer to as 
  Sun. Its a silent quality of the mind, I suppose, but thats not the
  salient thing about it. If there is a bright light of warmth within
  you (these are poetic descriptions qualities, not literal, but it
  feels in the radiant class of things) then, at least for me, identity
  seems to be with that rather than social identity or achievements.
  Though the whole concept of identity is perhaps not even a good
  descriptor. Its not anything like my social identity. And this may not
  be the silent quality of the mind ED is referring to. And it may not
  correspond to anything ancients felt. Given that -- we cannot
  experience what another does, for sure, and no one can adequately
  describe inner states completely.
 
 This was a thoughtful attempt to describe your inner experience
 without jargon which I appreciate.  It seems if I understand you that
 you are identifying with a spiritual concept framework 

Actually, I am working to get out of any concept -- spiritual or
otherwise -- or framework. And simply describe identity as I
experience it. But having shattered identity and meaning as
un-useful concepts in my adjacent post, I am not sure what I am
describing and and why (if it has no meaning).

 with a healthy
 dose of honesty about what you know and what you don't. 

The wonderful thing about reading and learning (mostly on one's own --
institutional learning can be something else) is that with each new
insight or nexus factoid -- the amount of unkowingness expands
exponentially. And not like from a base of 1.1 or something -- which
still grows huge with a few iterations. But a base of 10 or so. Learn
one thing and 10 new questions arise. Trace each of those down and 10
new unknowns on each branch. It takes a well-(often self)educated
person to realize how dismissively unknowing we are. So any healthy
doses of honesty just fuel the flames of unknowing. So why even bother
discussing it if the chasm gets deeper and wider with each sentence?
(Stupidity and compulsion come to mind -- but the
meaningfulness-searching little ghost in me will try to craft a far
more compelling description I am sure. And for not, I am also sure.)

 I think I am
 still on the social identity side of the fence for where I place my
 inner value.  

I ask inqusitively (and ask myself more), and without snidness, do you
care what social identity you project? And why? Franklin or someone
said that if the human race were blind, he would give far less
attention to clothing, grooming, home and furnishings. Perhaps since
the world is pretty blind, why should one care what ones social
identity is? (Other than appealing to embodiments of lustful
fantasies -- which is what Franklin was probably silently referring
too -- so if one can momentarily suspend the warped and hazardous
search for such) -- what does social identity bring to the game? Other
than the practicality of responding when someone says 'you' have won
the lottery

  
   I know it is appealing to believe that your perspective is a
universal
   truth.  
  
  Have you seen the show Weeds. There is a great shot of The Church of
  Absolute Truth -- a bit of a flim flam church. Which to me is a
  perfect image. How would one determine if something was universally
  true. There are lots of different people -- and the universe is quite
  large. We would only know if The Church of Absolute Truth (pick your
  own denomination, TMO, Republicanism, fundamentalists ..) tells us its
  true.  And we are one of the ones born every second.
 
 Here here!  I have seen some Weeds episodes, funny show.

(And I can see the desire and even compulsion to buff up the social
self to appeal to Mary-Louise Parker.)

  But we all interpret our internal experience our own way.  I
   spent time with a lot of monks who did TM and they never indentifed
   the silence of their minds in activity as their true self.
  
  What did they identify with? Some aspect of Christ? 
 
 If I could presume to speak for them I think they identified with the
 part of themselves that chose to be one with Christ through the
 instrumentality of silence.  They were big on the idea that
 experiencing the absolute didn't make your spiritual life a done
 deal, that a lot of conscious choice was still involved. Relating to 
 the experience of the mystics without including this aspect is a
 common fallacy of Westerners involved with Eastern Spirituality. 


That's an interesting point.

There
 are similar descriptions, but the differences include some real deal
 breakers for the Christians.  It is in the differences that you find
 the most interesting components of the beliefs. The ecumenical 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_re...@... wrote:

 
 i did an informal analysis, and Barry is the one on FFL getting the 
 least return for his effort. he writes the most words, and gets the 
 least number of posts in response. no doubt because i and others 
can 
 predict what Barry will write, even befor he writes it:
 
 has to do with a new TMO initiative? just hang around for a day or 
 two, and ol' reliable will be cranking out a hit piece on it, on 
why 
 everyone thinks they are so special and they are really not (yawn) 
 so special, because they only do it because they were TOLD TO 
 (oooh..). 
 
 has to do with a detailed discussion of higher states of 
 conciousness? 1...2...3...here it comes, Barry's tired old saw on 
 how there is no such thing, and if there was would they act like 
 this, and what's so special about it, yammer, yammer, yammer- zzz 
 zzz. 
 
 as Barry himself said recently, I am a bullshit artist... yep, we 
 smell ya a mile away.

He's been doing this for years. I wonder why he simply can't/won't  
forget his past relationship with the TMO. 
It obviously made an everlasting mark on his poor soul
since he is not able/willing to moove on.

[FairfieldLife] What is the nature of attachment? (Re: All of Patanjali's 8 limbs )

[grate . swan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
 In what sense is the brain you have the *same* as the brain you had
 thirty years ago? All the molecules have changed. The patterns have
 changed. Are you not the same person as thirty years ago? (Just trying
 to rumble your assumption of materialism!)

Beyond the stuff of new-age platitudes and gee-whiz charlatan
motivational speakers -- social identity lacks a firm or continuous
sense of self. I relate to my self 30 years ago as much as I relate to
my dog 30 years (and identifying with the dog is far more
complimentary). Even yesterday -- who was that guy? And what the
%*(^*^ was he thinking! 

Something that keeps the flame of the social self alive are others
casting your present social self into the past. Nada -- that's not the
guy here now.   

And per your points, the body is not the same -- the cell replacement
rate changes every year or two I believe. i suppose that my DNA
structure remains constant through my life -- (unless those early drug
studies were right) -- even if the cells do not. The Form of my DNA --
to mix Plato and Watson.  But my DNA is a small part of family gene
pool -- and a far smaller fraction of the human gene pool.  
And my small part of that was granted in a pretty random way -- lets
shake the DNA dice honey and see what we get this time (can't be any
worse than the last one -- younger brother humor. So a life-long Form
of some random DNA coupling -- subject to mutation through the ages.
How impressive! The ego certainly (tries) to hang its hat in odd places.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 What else could one call the belief that the
 world around us, the relative world we interact 
 with daily and touch and feel and around whose 
 events we plan our lives, is not real?
 
 And yet, that is the core belief driving many of
 the people who post to this group, as far as I can
 tell. It all goes back to the distinction between
 hierarchical and relational thinking I rapped about
 last week. If one believes that the description of
 the relative world as Maya, as illusion, is 
 higher or more true than the description of
 that world as real, then one has effectively written
 the relative world and its cares and responsibilities
 out of the equation.

Gosh, here's yet another bunch of FFLers whose
postings I seem never to have seen.

Wonder where this belief would have come from?
Certainly not from Maharishi.

What other teacher or spiritual philosophy do
many who post to this group have in common?
Amma? SSRS? Is this what they teach?

Or are the FFLers who hold this belief another
of Barry's fantasies, created by his fertile
imagination specifically for the purpose of
having folks to dump on?

[FairfieldLife] Re: School of Thought Colorado debut at Boulder International Film Festival

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickm...@... wrote:

 
 QA with Tony Perri, director of the transcendental-meditation 
documentary
 School of Thought
 By Michael Roberts in Night  Day Updates
 Friday, Feb. 13 2009 @ 9:29AM
 
 
 An image from the Tony Perri film School of Thought.
 
 School of Thought, a documentary by local filmmaker Tony Perri, 
makes 
 its Colorado debut tomorrow, February 14, as part of the Boulder 
 International Film Festival. (The screening takes place at 4:45 
p.m. 
 at the Boulder Public Library; also on the bill is another short 
 documentary, Come Back to Sudan. Click here for details.) Thought 
 focuses on the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, a K-12 
 facility, and the affiliated Maharishi University of Management, 
 located in the unlikely locale of Fairfield, Iowa. Both 
institutions 
 couple their basic curricula with transcendental meditation -- and 
 among those who boost the concept on camera is director David 
Lynch, 
 whose cinematic oeuvre includes Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr. and 
other 
 films that don't usually leave viewers in a state of peace and 
bliss.
 
 Perri, who'll attend tomorrow's showing, provides background and 
 talks about his motivation for enrolling in this particular School 
of 
 Thought in the following QA.
 
 Westword (Michael Roberts): How long has the university been in 
Fairfield?
 
 Tony Perri: I don't remember the exact date, but there was an old 
 college there, called Parsons College, that went bankrupt. The 
school 
 bought up that land in the early '80s and they started the 
university 
 shortly after that.
 
 WW: At what point did David Lynch get involved?
 
 TP: He got involved about three years ago. He had gone out there 
just 
 to visit the school and meet the students, and he tells a great 
story 
 about it. He went to a high school play at the Maharishi School and 
 being blown away by the students. He felt that what these students 
 have, every student should have. It was the visit there that really 
 prompted him to start his foundation. And in fact, on April 4 at 
 Radio City Music Hall, Paul McCartney, Sheryl Crow, Eddie Vedder, 
 they're all doing a benefit concert for the David Lynch Foundation 
 and the school. So he's really taken the reins with his foundation, 
 and he travels the world promoting meditation in schools.
 
 WW: Are the high school and university separate? Or are they 
 considered to be all part of the same institution?
 
 TP: There's two schools. The university is called the Maharishi 
 University of Management -- MUM. And the K-12 school is the 
Maharishi 
 School of the Age of Englightenment...
 
 WW: How much does David Lynch contribute to the schools through the 
 foundation? And does he wholly support them? Or is there other 
 funding coming in from other sources?
 
 TP: I know there's quite a bit of other funding coming in. And the 
 David Lynch Foundation was established to promote meditation to 
 schools all over the world.
 
 WW: The reason I ask that question is because the class sizes in 
the 
 high school, in particular, seem very small, and the facility looks 
 very impressive. I would think it would be hugely expensive to keep 
 the school going with this seemingly modest number of students...
 
 TP: Well, I think the K-12 school has about 300 students, and I 
don't 
 really know the details about their finances and how they make it 
all 
 work. But I think the school probably looks better on film. It's 
 quite modest. They actually need money. They're not overflowing 
with 
 cash, I don't think.
 
 WW: As a fan of David Lynch's films, I came to your movie with 
 certain expectations. Think of Blue Velvet, for example, where the 
 community looks hyper-normal on the surface, but if you look 
deeper, 
 everything is really weird. In School of Thought, everything looks 
 really normal on the surface, too, and I kept waiting for the 
 weirdness -- and it doesn't come. And that was weird in itself. 
 [Perri laughs.] Have you had other people who've seen your film 
have 
 a reaction like that?
 
 TP: A little bit, yes, I have. But David Lynch explains it the 
best. 
 He says he doesn't get any of his ideas for films while he's 
 meditating -- that the meditation part of it is all very separate, 
 and that you're not really thinking of anything while you're 
 meditating. People ask him at these giant QAs that he has out 
there, 
 Where do your ideas come from? Are they all from meditation? And 
he 
 says no -- that you can be weird and bizarre and think about crazy 
 stuff and still be kind of normal. That's his answer, and I kind of 
 go along with that. When you meet David Lynch, he's very different 
 than you'd expect. He's got a huge heart, he cares deeply about 
 children and about the world, and so it's a very different persona 
 than I think people might have of him.
 
 WW: You note in the film that some of the townspeople in Fairfield 
 aren't completely sold on 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[sparaig]

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
   
In TM research  there is a  prevalence of small, nearly
 insignificant
results.  This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none.   If
the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
is attracted and usually the work is either confirmed or debunked.
Like cold fusion.  But if your blood pressure drops two points
 or your
IQ increases 2 points, even if statistically significant, it is hard
to get outside people very interested because it just isn't that
interesting.
   
   
   Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to not mention the
 actual  
   figures or not mention them in a way makes the obviously
 insignificant  
   result seem small. SO instead of saying TM reduces blood pressure  
   0.08 % from normal baseline BP in healthy individuals they'll
 instead  
   push something like TM reduces blood pressure, TM decreases blood  
   pressure, TM is good at reducing blood pressure, etc. and saturate  
   the web and broadcast media as much as they can. In other words,  
   instead of poisoning the well, they sweeten it. People like sweet  
   news.
  
  
  Marketing is another issue.
  
  
  L
 
 Yes, but it is hard to separate the issues.  We acknowledge that
 everyone has some bias and everyone likes to be right.  This is
 exhibited in risks of confirmation bias and risks of using a too
 narrow an approach.  However, the risks are not the same for everyone
 everywhere. A marketing blitz by your supporting organization which
 tends to exaggerate results reflects on you as part of the
 organization.  Some, like Orme-Johnson and Haglin, both market and
 research, which makes it look like they are even more biased than
 most.  

Researchers of Buddhist meditation are interviewed by NPR to tout their latest
studies, make comments about how they already knew that buddhist meditation
worked and didn't need to perform the studies they were doing to show it worked,
etc. The bias may not be as obvious, or as straightforward, but it certainly
is there in many cases, IMHO.


The woman who did the ADHD pilot study has participated in
 marketing her study. Travis has done talks that wax eloquent about the
 power of TM. How often do the TMO researchers test alternative
 hypotheses? And isn't a particular complaint of TM research that there
 is evidence of expectation bias in that they view all their data as
 fitting their expectation that TM works? 
 

se above Anyone who practices the technique they study has that problem,
IMHO.

 It is all part of trying to evaluate the bias risks.  We do not have
 access to their actual procedures, to their hard data.  We can't know
 to what extent their biases effect a particular study. But given the
 fact that false positives are likely prevalent in research anyway,
 that Orme-Johnson has said that they lean towards trying to show an
 effect in their research, that many of the TM researchers participate
 in exaggerated marketing claims,that the TMO researchers truly believe
 TM works,  my bias concerns are greater with the TMO than with
 Davidson.  All bias is not created equal.  

False positives AND false negatives are prevalent in research.



 
 This is separate from my discussion of pattern recognition, but as all
 these things are it is related.  The issue of pattern recognition is
 two-fold.  One is positive, the ability of trained experts to spot new
 and interesting patterns.  The other is negative, the risk of seeing a
 pattern when none is there.


The Law of Fives is an interesting thing, but hopefully statistics and good 
faith
scientific procedures will reduce it sufficiently, in the long run, to allow us
to get some idea of what is what.


L

[FairfieldLife] Golden Rule found in most major religions

[do.rflex]

Did you know that there's a version of the Golden Rule in most (maybe
all) major religions? Here are translations of some religious texts:


CHRISTIANITY

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. 
- Matthew 7:12


JUDAISM

What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary. 
- Talmud, Shabbat, 312


HINDUISM

This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you
pain if done to you. 
- Mahabharata, 5, 1517


CONFUCIANISM

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you
would not have them do unto you. 
- Analects, 15, 23


TAOISM

Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss
as your own loss. 
- T'sai Shang Kan Ying P'ien


BUDDHISM

Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful. 
- Udana-Varga, 5, 18


ZOROASTRIANISM

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another
whatsoever is not good for itself. 
- Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5


ISLAM

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
which he desires for himself. 
- Sunnah


JAINISM

One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be
treated.
- Mahavira, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


BAHA'I FAITH

Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon
you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for
yourself.
- Baha'u'llah

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcg...@... wrote:

 I have to agree with pretty much everything Barry writes here.
 
 And sad IS the best word to describe it.
 
 It would be wonderful if many people started TM as a result.  Perhaps 
 the only way that can happen is if the money raised is used to get 
 people started in other countries, non-western countries because 
 it's tainted here as far as education goes (which is what the Lynch 
 Foundation is all about).
 
 Let them raise several million, keep it away from Girish, and see 
 about getting Venezuelans or some other nationality's people 
 meditating.

There's supposed to be a waiting list of at least 100 *schools* in the USA
for funding to teach TM there.

L.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

  I think your point is well taken, even though what
  MMY said was on the margins...it was there!
 
 On the margins?? It was a whole section in SBAL,
 and TM teachers certainly heard a lot about it
 during TTC, from what they said.
 
   Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
  agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete
  system of spiritual unfoldment?
 
 Depends on how you define a complete system of
 spiritual unfoldment. No system of spiritual
 unfoldment can live your life for you; you have
 to do that. You have to do that anyway, whether
 you're following some system of spiritual
 unfoldment or not.

*Both are necessary and should go hand in hand*. MMY on Religion SOBAL

The rituals of the various religions represent the body, and the
practice of directly experiencing Being represents the Spirit. *Both
are necessary and should go hand in hand*. One will not survive
without the other. MMY

That is my only point, in actuality very few TM'ers actually do this!
It has become *TM in lieu of Religion*.  I was never taught to teach
that TM should be practiced *in conjunction* with your Religion or
that TM should go hand in hand with your Religion. And I certainly was
never taught to say TM is *necessary* to your Religion, or *Religion was
necessary* to TM because, one will not survive without the other. 

Get my point? But that is exactly what MMY is suggesting, and my
contention, in line with MMY's, is that TM must be practiced in
conjunction with Religion (or Yama and Niyama, etc.) to be really
effective (in achieving Yoga). That's not being taught!

In fact, since TM offers no direct scriptural guidelines you have no
choice but to go elsewhere as if TM could piggy-back upon any
Religion, ha, perhaps in their original forms but certainly not how most
Western Religions are taught today. TM'ers really have no where to go
to fulfill MMY's suggestion except perhaps Hinduism or Vedic Science
which is the Eternal Religion of the Vedas. MMY The Vedas

P.S. I can see a TM teacher now suggesting that new meditators should
start going to confession, etc.ha, ha.  Yet that is the
suggestion...get real.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Frank Rich: They Sure Showed That Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote:
snip
[quoting Frank Rich of the NYTimes:]
 Obama Losing Stimulus Message War was the headline at
 Politico a day later.

Emanuel Says Obama Team Lost Message on Stimulus

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded
President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the 
message for selling their massive stimulus bill last 
week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were 
savaging the legislation

To put skin in the game and get negotiators off of their 
hardened positions, Mr. Emanuel signaled up front that 
the president would give ground on his Making Work Pay 
signature tax proposal, a $500-per-worker tax cut to 
offset payroll taxes. That tax cut was ultimately pared 
back to $400, with an income eligibility cap lowered from 
$150,000 to $140,000.

They also swallowed hard and accepted a $70 billion, 
temporary fix for the alternative minimum tax, even if it 
had marginal stimulative effect and would crowd out more 
beneficial proposals.

It was the price for getting the deal done, he said, 
conceding that with some of the compromises, there's 
going to be an impact on certain economic activities.

 Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once
 again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition.

Mr. Emanuel owned up to one mistake: message. What he 
called the outside game slipped away from the White House 
last week, when the president and others stressed 
bipartisanship rather than job creation as they moved 
toward passing the measure. White House officials allowed 
an insatiable desire in Washington for bipartisanship to 
cloud the economic message, a point coming clear in a 
study being conducted on what went wrong and what went 
right with the package, he said

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123449249590080699.html#

http://tinyurl.com/cpp5gp

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightenment: Benefit or Disorder? (was nature of attachment)

[emptybill]

Straw men, Straw women, Straw dogs. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  What else could one call the belief that the
  world around us, the relative world we interact 
  with daily and touch and feel and around whose 
  events we plan our lives, is not real?
  
  And yet, that is the core belief driving many of
  the people who post to this group, as far as I can
  tell. It all goes back to the distinction between
  hierarchical and relational thinking I rapped about
  last week. If one believes that the description of
  the relative world as Maya, as illusion, is 
  higher or more true than the description of
  that world as real, then one has effectively written
  the relative world and its cares and responsibilities
  out of the equation.
 
 Gosh, here's yet another bunch of FFLers whose
 postings I seem never to have seen.
 
 Wonder where this belief would have come from?
 Certainly not from Maharishi.
 
 What other teacher or spiritual philosophy do
 many who post to this group have in common?
 Amma? SSRS? Is this what they teach?
 
 Or are the FFLers who hold this belief another
 of Barry's fantasies, created by his fertile
 imagination specifically for the purpose of
 having folks to dump on?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
   I think your point is well taken, even though what
   MMY said was on the margins...it was there!
  
  On the margins?? It was a whole section in SBAL,
  and TM teachers certainly heard a lot about it
  during TTC, from what they said.
  
Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
   agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete
   system of spiritual unfoldment?
  
  Depends on how you define a complete system of
  spiritual unfoldment. No system of spiritual
  unfoldment can live your life for you; you have
  to do that. You have to do that anyway, whether
  you're following some system of spiritual
  unfoldment or not.
 
 *Both are necessary and should go hand in hand*.
 MMY on Religion SOBAL
 
 The rituals of the various religions represent the
 body, and the practice of directly experiencing Being
 represents the Spirit. *Both are necessary and should
 go hand in hand*. One will not survive without the
 other. MMY

Right. Which is what I also pointed out to you a few
days ago and you stoutly denied, claiming you were
going to disappear if I could cite anywhere that
MMY said this.

 That is my only point, in actuality very few TM'ers
 actually do this!
 It has become *TM in lieu of Religion*.  I was never
 taught to teach that TM should be practiced *in
 conjunction* with your Religion or that TM should go
 hand in hand with your Religion.

Funny, I heard exactly this from the TM teachers I
listened to.

But this doesn't have anything to do with the point
I was making.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@...
wrote:

 On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  Just as a question, does anyone else see the
  fascination with this concert as a little sad?
 
 Yep, just thinking the same thing.

Even sadder in a way to think about is 
how much it says about the long-term 
reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
when its two most compulsive defenders 
on this forum are a man pretending to 
be a woman and a woman who doesn't even 
bother any more to pretend to be a human 
being.  

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 14 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 21 00:00:00 2009
218 messages as of (UTC) Mon Feb 16 00:12:58 2009

21 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
17 authfriend jst...@panix.com
16 sparaig lengli...@cox.net
13 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com
12 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
11 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net
11 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
 9 Arhata Osho arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com
 8 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com
 8 I am the eternal l.shad...@gmail.com
 7 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com
 5 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com
 5 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 5 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk
 5 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com
 5 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 5 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com
 4 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net
 4 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 4 curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com
 4 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com
 4 Kirk kirk_bernha...@cox.net
 4 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com
 4 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com
 3 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 3 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com
 3 grate.swan no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 2 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com
 2 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com
 2 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com
 2 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com
 2 John jr_...@yahoo.com
 1 satvadude108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 1 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 1 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net
 1 jyouells2000 john_youe...@comcast.net
 1 billy jim emptyb...@yahoo.com
 1 aylyalight aylyali...@yahoo.com
 1 Patrick Gillam jpgil...@yahoo.com
 1 Barbara Thomas barbara_thoma...@yahoo.com

Posters: 40
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Golden Rule found in most major religions

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rf...@...
wrote:



 Did you know that there's a version of the Golden Rule in most (maybe
 all) major religions? Here are translations of some religious texts:


 CHRISTIANITY

 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
 do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
 - Matthew 7:12


 JUDAISM

 What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
 Law; all the rest is commentary.
 - Talmud, Shabbat, 312


 HINDUISM

 This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you
 pain if done to you.
 - Mahabharata, 5, 1517


 CONFUCIANISM

 Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you
 would not have them do unto you.
 - Analects, 15, 23


 TAOISM

 Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss
 as your own loss.
 - T'sai Shang Kan Ying P'ien


 BUDDHISM

 Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.
 - Udana-Varga, 5, 18


 ZOROASTRIANISM

 That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another
 whatsoever is not good for itself.
 - Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5


 ISLAM

 No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
 which he desires for himself.
 - Sunnah


 JAINISM

 One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be
 treated.
 - Mahavira, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


 BAHA'I FAITH

 Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon
 you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for
 yourself.
 - Baha'u'llah


Wowwell those don't seem to match with the way half of the old
anti-TM crowd here on FFL behave???

(these are great by the way, thanks for posting this)

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Theology after Vedanta, by Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

[emptybill]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:
  Theology after Vedanta,
 by Francis X. Clooney, S.J.

 The author is a Jesuit priest and therefore to some extent an outsider
to
 the Vedic tradition but his read is one that demonstrates a
sensitivity to
 and admiration for Advaita.

My first professor of Asian philosophy and religion was an ex-Jesuit. 
He was unparalleled in academic rigor yet he advanced an expansiveness
of view which was amazing. When he went out on his own into the world at
large he had to get a dispensation from Pius (the something).  He told
me he felt he needed to demonstrate independence. Perhaps in those days
he did because there was a lot of distrust in academic circles about
Jesuits in those days.

He came to college town from Sophia University in Tokyo. Harvard liked
him but wouldn't give him tenure - they didn't want too many Jesuits on
staff. We were uncommonly fortunate to have a teacher of this quality in
the mid-west.

It was 1968-1969 and he taught courses on St. Bonaventure from Latin
texts, St. John of the Cross from Spanish. He gave us Husserl's Ideas
and Heidegger Being and Time from German. He gave courses on Hindu Yoga
using Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and Buddhist Abhidharma using both the
Visuddhi Magga and the Vimukti Magga.

However his ultimate interest was Buddhism - Mahayana Lankavatara, Hua
Yen's Tsing Mi and the Awakening of Faith from classical Chinese - Soto
Five Ranks from Japanese.

The first time I saw him enter a classroom he took a look at the eight
texts we had with us. He declared them an absurdity required only by the
university. He shouted ... if you could understand from these books
then I would stay home. He then picked them up and threw them along the
wall. I am the book! He glared at us. Listen to me and record what I
say. Then you can begin.

The times were exploding, we were on fire and he loved it. Years later
he lamented the passing of those days and the spiritual hunger we
brought to our study. After we passed out of the university he was
disappointed -  most students coming in just wanted to make money.

This blend of rigor and expansiveness helped me understand the fallacy
of just dismissing the theoretical framework of the teachings we discuss
here - as if our understanding could be replaced by a set of opinions we
eventually latch onto.

Francis Clooney the author of the book in question is a fine scholar and
a Jesuit. I've read one of his more technical books.  I'm looking
forward to reading another Jesuit who can fly with the eagles.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[BillyG.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
I think your point is well taken, even though what
MMY said was on the margins...it was there!
   
   On the margins?? It was a whole section in SBAL,
   and TM teachers certainly heard a lot about it
   during TTC, from what they said.
   
 Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete
system of spiritual unfoldment?
   
   Depends on how you define a complete system of
   spiritual unfoldment. No system of spiritual
   unfoldment can live your life for you; you have
   to do that. You have to do that anyway, whether
   you're following some system of spiritual
   unfoldment or not.
  
  *Both are necessary and should go hand in hand*.
  MMY on Religion SOBAL
  
  The rituals of the various religions represent the
  body, and the practice of directly experiencing Being
  represents the Spirit. *Both are necessary and should
  go hand in hand*. One will not survive without the
  other. MMY
 
 Right. Which is what I also pointed out to you a few
 days ago and you stoutly denied, claiming you were
 going to disappear if I could cite anywhere that
 MMY said this.

Yeah...but *I* found it!  The offer still stands. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
 Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
 Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
 who have looked at the research in question and come
 to the same conclusions independently, now, could
 there?
 
 An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
 that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of horrors being
 a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
 or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
 a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
 misleading impression that he is simply an
 independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
 
 This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
 after another about how TM research has been
 conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
 said is that some of it has been called in question.
 
 Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
 confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
 ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!

Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember back when you postulated 
that I 
was Barry, posting under another name?
In fact it was another year or so before I even knew (thanks to Rick's 
verification for me) 
that the Turq Barry was one and the same with the Barry Wright I knew all those 
years 
ago.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wg...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ 
wrote:
   
 I think your point is well taken, even though what
 MMY said was on the margins...it was there!

On the margins?? It was a whole section in SBAL,
and TM teachers certainly heard a lot about it
during TTC, from what they said.

  Touche!  I would assume then, that you would
 agree with me that TM *alone* is not a complete
 system of spiritual unfoldment?

Depends on how you define a complete system of
spiritual unfoldment. No system of spiritual
unfoldment can live your life for you; you have
to do that. You have to do that anyway, whether
you're following some system of spiritual
unfoldment or not.
   
   *Both are necessary and should go hand in hand*.
   MMY on Religion SOBAL
   
   The rituals of the various religions represent the
   body, and the practice of directly experiencing Being
   represents the Spirit. *Both are necessary and should
   go hand in hand*. One will not survive without the
   other. MMY
  
  Right. Which is what I also pointed out to you a few
  days ago and you stoutly denied, claiming you were
  going to disappear if I could cite anywhere that
  MMY said this.
 
 Yeah...but *I* found it!  The offer still stands. :-)

Uh, no, Billy, I told you where it was.

[FairfieldLife] Newbie!

[lm_alderton]

Hi guys :) 
Im new here so I thought id introduce myself..My name is Lauren 
Alderton and I live in western australia. I work in childcare atm and 
absolutely love it, I am so inspired by the energy, the innocence and 
hope of the children that i work with. I have such a special bond with 
children but I have been told that I am not aloud to hug them :( and I 
am a very affectionate, loving and caring person so Im feeling 
extremely disheartened now. I am at uni now studying Early childhood 
and hope to open up my own centre one day. 

I look forward to getting to know you all!!

P.S I just launched a web site, there is still ALOT more to add to it 
but please give it a look and tell me what you think!! it has got me 
excited!!

http://www.PlugInProfitSite.com/main-26076

www.creativeprosperities.com 

Brightest blessings to all :)

Lauren Alderton 
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/creativeprosperities/

[FairfieldLife] Newbie!

[lm_alderton]

Hi guys :) 
Im new here so I thought id introduce myself..My name is Lauren 
Alderton and I live in western australia. I work in childcare atm and 
absolutely love it, I am so inspired by the energy, the innocence and 
hope of the children that i work with. I have such a special bond with 
children but I have been told that I am not aloud to hug them :( and I 
am a very affectionate, loving and caring person so Im feeling 
extremely disheartened now. I am at uni now studying Early childhood 
and hope to open up my own centre one day. 

I look forward to getting to know you all!!

P.S I just launched a web site, there is still ALOT more to add to it 
but please give it a look and tell me what you think!! it has got me 
excited!!

http://www.PlugInProfitSite.com/main-26076

www.creativeprosperities.com 

Brightest blessings to all :)

Lauren Alderton 
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/creativeprosperities/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[yifuxero]

--.Good!; you are including relative + Absolute in a global entity,
what the Nichiren Buddhists call the true entity of life. So what is
the true entity...Being? No. Everybody is a holon, or Holographic
entity, localized in relative space/time through the agency of a
body/mind.
 Neo-Advaitins will tell us the true entity is Being, Being, the
Self, the Void, etc; which only results in getting them into the
last snare of Maya.
Thus, Maya has 2 parts, the first part being confusing the rope for
the snake, or identifying only with the snake; while the second is the
Neo-Advaitic error: a supposed identification solely with the rope.
The true entity is the rope/snake, but not a. the rope alone, or
b. the snake alone. 


:
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@...
wrote:

 well said. and by engaging this spiritualizing of the will, or 
 perhaps combining faith and desire, however we look at it, it grows 
 with practice. 
 
 i recall when i was younger feeling somewhat tentative and alone in 
 my desire to transform Maya into my life supporting reality. 
 sometimes it felt like all of my prayer and the transformation i 
 wanted so badly would never happen. it felt so thin and weak. slowly 
 and through much application of the will and the heart, the 
 positive, intimate, life affirming world i have awakened to is 
 recognizable, familiar and fulfilling.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  By practicing a form of meditation like TM one can 'spiritualize'
  their will, and only when the will has the power of the Spirit 
 coming
  from, and in, the heart will success be ensured.
  
  A mere mental acknowledgment that one must change or an idealistic
  thought that losing weight would be nice or whatever, is not 
 enough,
  it must come from the desire which resides in the heart, the 
 essence
  of who you truly are, not some mental idealism.
  
  Whatever your Maya (devil) induced weakness leads you to do, 
 perhaps
  you have a eating disorder, or are prone to lust and pornography, 
 the
  prescription is the same.
  
  By Spiritualizing the Will we mean contacting the source of all 
 power
  in your inner SELF or Soul,  combining that with the sincerity 
 which
  comes from the heart (desire) and one is invincible.
  
  But contacting Spirit, alone, is not enough, one must also attach
  their *will* and their *effort* to the power one experiences during
  either meditation or even prayer, *sincerity* is the operative word
  here. Sincerity comes from the heart, the seat of the soul.
  
  So, idealism, conjoined with Soul power, and supported by sincere
  effort, creates the chemistry leading to success, for whatever goal
  you may have. 
  
  As it says in the bible:  
  
  Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, but 
 with
  God all things are possible.  Matthew 19:26   (Today's sermon :-)
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
  Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
  Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
  who have looked at the research in question and come
  to the same conclusions independently, now, could
  there?
snip
 
 Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember
 back when you postulated that I was Barry, posting
 under another name?

Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
coming to Barry's defense?

Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
I tried to find it myself and couldn't.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Breaking the back of the devil thru spiritualized Will.

[enlightened_dawn11]

i think anyone who suddenly finds themselves awakened to the Self 
during activity is going to be seduced by it for a short while. even 
to the point of trying to hold onto it. but as someone said to me so 
many years ago, the way to find God(dess) is to stop looking for Him 
(Her).

so what might be codified as a neo-advaitin way of looking at things 
is just maturation of merging with the Self. there is no reason to 
call anyone out on it, since the bigger problem in such cases is 
the mood making. like someone was saying about some of the micro-
sects in the TMO, they want to hold onto their silence so badly that 
they give up a lot of living for it as a result.

this association of mood making about the Self with neo-advaitins 
sounds like a strategy a so called spiritual teacher would use to 
divide and conquer his/her students, by making a big deal out of 
what is a natural step in the process of integrating activity with 
Being.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... 
wrote:

 --.Good!; you are including relative + Absolute in a global entity,
 what the Nichiren Buddhists call the true entity of life. So 
what is
 the true entity...Being? No. Everybody is a holon, or Holographic
 entity, localized in relative space/time through the agency of a
 body/mind.
  Neo-Advaitins will tell us the true entity is Being, Being, the
 Self, the Void, etc; which only results in getting them into 
the
 last snare of Maya.
 Thus, Maya has 2 parts, the first part being confusing the rope for
 the snake, or identifying only with the snake; while the second is 
the
 Neo-Advaitic error: a supposed identification solely with the rope.
 The true entity is the rope/snake, but not a. the rope alone, or
 b. the snake alone. 
 
 
 :
 - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@
 wrote:
 
  well said. and by engaging this spiritualizing of the will, or 
  perhaps combining faith and desire, however we look at it, it 
grows 
  with practice. 
  
  i recall when i was younger feeling somewhat tentative and alone 
in 
  my desire to transform Maya into my life supporting reality. 
  sometimes it felt like all of my prayer and the transformation i 
  wanted so badly would never happen. it felt so thin and weak. 
slowly 
  and through much application of the will and the heart, the 
  positive, intimate, life affirming world i have awakened to is 
  recognizable, familiar and fulfilling.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
  
   By practicing a form of meditation like TM one 
can 'spiritualize'
   their will, and only when the will has the power of the Spirit 
  coming
   from, and in, the heart will success be ensured.
   
   A mere mental acknowledgment that one must change or an 
idealistic
   thought that losing weight would be nice or whatever, is not 
  enough,
   it must come from the desire which resides in the heart, the 
  essence
   of who you truly are, not some mental idealism.
   
   Whatever your Maya (devil) induced weakness leads you to do, 
  perhaps
   you have a eating disorder, or are prone to lust and 
pornography, 
  the
   prescription is the same.
   
   By Spiritualizing the Will we mean contacting the source of 
all 
  power
   in your inner SELF or Soul,  combining that with the sincerity 
  which
   comes from the heart (desire) and one is invincible.
   
   But contacting Spirit, alone, is not enough, one must also 
attach
   their *will* and their *effort* to the power one experiences 
during
   either meditation or even prayer, *sincerity* is the operative 
word
   here. Sincerity comes from the heart, the seat of the soul.
   
   So, idealism, conjoined with Soul power, and supported by 
sincere
   effort, creates the chemistry leading to success, for whatever 
goal
   you may have. 
   
   As it says in the bible:  
   
   Jesus looked at them and said, With man this is impossible, 
but 
  with
   God all things are possible.  Matthew 19:26   (Today's 
sermon :-)
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[gullible fool]

Even sadder in a way to think about is 
how much it says about the long-term 
reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
when its two most compulsive defenders 
on this forum are a man pretending to 
be a woman...
 
I spend so little time now reading the posters that fall into the troll and 
nutbar category that I do not even know to which poster you are referring.
 
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love. 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear 
at the concert
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 7:12 PM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@...
wrote:

 On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
  Just as a question, does anyone else see the
  fascination with this concert as a little sad?
 
 Yep, just thinking the same thing.

Even sadder in a way to think about is 
how much it says about the long-term 
reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
when its two most compulsive defenders 
on this forum are a man pretending to 
be a woman and a woman who doesn't even 
bother any more to pretend to be a human 
being.  







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] Newbie!

[Rick Archer]

Hi Lauren. Welcome. Nice to hear that you love kids and all, but it's too
bad that you sullied your friendly introduction with links to your cheesy
money-making sites. Please don't post those links again or we'll have to
remove your membership.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin Tarantino could love

[gullible fool]

 
I did not know Dollhouse was on Friday at 9. I would have watched it or DVRed 
it. 
 
Fox might want to try advertising it.
 
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love. 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin Tarantino 
could love
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 7:04 AM

Continuing the rap about the disappointing-to-
many debut of Dollhouse, here is a link to a
trade article talking about how badly it did 
in the ratings. 

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/02/dollhouse-terminator-premiere-ratings.html

But, what is far more interesting on this page
is the video clip that's there. 

It appears to be a *real* commercial from FOX
for their two most interesting series -- Doll-
house and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Watch it and see if you don't understand why they
are both losing in the ratings game. 

It's not the series themselves; it's the marketing,
stupid. These people at FOX have on their hands 
two television shows with a pretty interesting
intelligence quotient to them, but which also
contain action and attractive women. 

So how do they choose to *market* these shows?
By stressing the action and the attractive women,
and aiming the ads at *non-intelligent* doofuses.

THIS, in my opinion, is why FOX screws up so many
potentially interesting TV series. The series
themselves are often pretty good, and even intel-
ligent. But the people trying to sell them to the
public are anything BUT intelligent.

This commercial is almost parody. I had to watch
it twice to realize that it wasn't. Clearly, if
this commercial was aimed at the perceived intel-
ligence of his viewers, FOX thinks that the people
who watch its entertainment shows are as mentally
challenged as the ones who watch its News shows.







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] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool ffl...@... 
wrote:

 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman...
  
 I spend so little time now reading the posters
 that fall into the troll and nutbar category
 that I do not even know to which poster you are
 referring.

That's OK, he's lying, as usual. He's upset 
because a whole bunch of his other lies have
been exposed in the past couple of days, and
that always drives him to tell *more* lies
in an attempt to make himself feel better.
Talk about sad...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Newbie!

[enlightened_dawn11]

hey Rick, spam for dinner again? i'm afraid so...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote:

 Hi Lauren. Welcome. Nice to hear that you love kids and all, but 
it's too
 bad that you sullied your friendly introduction with links to your 
cheesy
 money-making sites. Please don't post those links again or we'll 
have to
 remove your membership.

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Gwad, Ruth...

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
   Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
   Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
   who have looked at the research in question and come
   to the same conclusions independently, now, could
   there?
 snip
  
  Before you get too carried away here kiddo, remember
  back when you postulated that I was Barry, posting
  under another name?
 
 Actually I don't remember that. Are you sure it was
 me? When was this? Did I *say* that, or did you just
 infer it? Is it possible I was mocking you for always
 coming to Barry's defense?
 
 Could you find the post? Because I have a sneaking
 suspicion you're either confused or making it up.
 I tried to find it myself and couldn't.

I spent a few minutes trying to backtrack and then thought, why am I doing 
this?? Yes, you 
postulated that I was Barry writing under another name. I finally had to write 
something to 
the effect that I am not Barry! I do not know who Barry is which was true at 
the time. It 
never occurred to me that the Barry who wrote here was the guy I knew so many 
years 
ago in LA. It would have been sometime in 2005 or so since that is when I 
learned that 
there was a group known as FFL.

[FairfieldLife] Please send reiki and healing energy for my wife's pregnancy

[dasuki999]

Dearest All,

Many thanks for your attention, kindness and helping for our family.


My wife, SITI MUNAWAROH, 25 years old, is having pregnant now. it's 

about a month. She has a problem with her pregnancy. She often have 

difficulty to take a breath and being fragile in sick.

I'd like to ask you for a help, please send our wife a pray and 
energy 

healing for her health of pregnancy. And blessing and light for our 

children 

May our children will be a spiritual being and Light.



Once again, many thanks.



With Best Regards,

Dasuki
(Cileunyi, Bandung City - West Java -INDONESIA)

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[enlightened_dawn11]

the man pretending to be a woman is his reference to me. he has also 
guessed at my identity several other times, calling me a blond 
(derogatory reference for him), someone who does and then doesn't 
practice TM, someone who claims to be enlightened, and then doesn't, 
all kinds of imaginings; I am a bullshit artist-- Barry Wright. 

it drives him crazy that i choose not to reveal more about myself, 
AND that i disagree with him. 

if i played the sycophant to Barry's postings, he wouldn't care if i 
was a three legged chicken with a mohawk who used to call himself 
Sally.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool ffl...@... 
wrote:

 
 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman...
  
 I spend so little time now reading the posters that fall into the 
troll and nutbar category that I do not even know to which poster 
you are referring.
  
 Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no 
`you,' only love. 
  
 - Amma  
 
 --- On Sun, 2/15/09, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] 
Ringo will appear at the concert
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 7:12 PM
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
 wrote:
 
  On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
  
   Just as a question, does anyone else see the
   fascination with this concert as a little sad?
  
  Yep, just thinking the same thing.
 
 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman and a woman who doesn't even 
 bother any more to pretend to be a human 
 being.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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: Golden Rule found in most major religions

[enlightened_dawn11]

given that there are exactly, and only, two members of the old anti-
TM crowd here on FFL, which one are you referring to, Vaj or Barry? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
no_re...@... wrote:

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , do.rflex do.rflex@
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Did you know that there's a version of the Golden Rule in most 
(maybe
  all) major religions? Here are translations of some religious 
texts:
 
 
  CHRISTIANITY
 
  Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you,
  do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
  - Matthew 7:12
 
 
  JUDAISM
 
  What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the 
entire
  Law; all the rest is commentary.
  - Talmud, Shabbat, 312
 
 
  HINDUISM
 
  This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could 
cause you
  pain if done to you.
  - Mahabharata, 5, 1517
 
 
  CONFUCIANISM
 
  Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other 
that you
  would not have them do unto you.
  - Analects, 15, 23
 
 
  TAOISM
 
  Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your 
neighbor's loss
  as your own loss.
  - T'sai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
 
 
  BUDDHISM
 
  Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.
  - Udana-Varga, 5, 18
 
 
  ZOROASTRIANISM
 
  That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another
  whatsoever is not good for itself.
  - Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5
 
 
  ISLAM
 
  No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother 
that
  which he desires for himself.
  - Sunnah
 
 
  JAINISM
 
  One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to 
be
  treated.
  - Mahavira, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
 
 
  BAHA'I FAITH
 
  Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid 
upon
  you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire 
for
  yourself.
  - Baha'u'llah
 
 
 Wowwell those don't seem to match with the way half of the old
 anti-TM crowd here on FFL behave???
 
 (these are great by the way, thanks for posting this)
 
 OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Get good results from malefic Rahu

[Shilpa B]

Hello All
 
I would like to know how to please Rahu quickly and get favourable results 
quickly from this planet.
 
As we all know , when Rahu planet is favourable , sudden good effects come into 
life , similarly when its bad , evil effects also are bit quicker coming into 
life .
 
I would be highly obliged if somebody tell me how to get favourable effects 
from malefic Rahu quickly ??
 
pls explain about Guru--Rahu Bhraman in karamasthana and how to overcome its 
ill effects
 
Regards
Shilpa



  

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin Tarantino could love

[Bhairitu]

Or read FFL as Turq and I were talking about it prior.   ;-)

gullible fool wrote:
  
 I did not know Dollhouse was on Friday at 9. I would have watched it or DVRed 
 it. 
  
 Fox might want to try advertising it.
  
 Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
 love. 
  
 - Amma  

   

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin Tarantino could love

[gullible fool]

 
I did read a lot of what you were saying about the show. It looks like you two 
did more advertising than Fox did.

 
Eliza is from my home town and comes by to visit her parents now and then. It's 
not that big a town...population under 33,000. 
 
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love. 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Dollhouse Commercial that only Quentin 
Tarantino could love
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 11:19 PM

Or read FFL as Turq and I were talking about it prior.   ;-)

gullible fool wrote:
  
 I did not know Dollhouse was on Friday at 9. I would have watched it or
DVRed it. 
  
 Fox might want to try advertising it.
  
 Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no
`you,' only love. 
  
 - Amma  

   






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] Get good results from malefic Rahu

[gullible fool]

 
Best thing I ever purchased:
 
http://www.mywebastrologer.com/powerkavach.asp
 
http://www.yournetastrologer.com/special_power_kavach.htm
 
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love. 
 
- Amma  


--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Shilpa B bshilpa2...@yahoo.com wrote:

From: Shilpa B bshilpa2...@yahoo.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Get good results from malefic Rahu
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 11:15 PM














Hello All
 
I would like to know how to please Rahu quickly and get favourable results 
quickly from this planet.
 
As we all know , when Rahu planet is favourable , sudden good effects come into 
life , similarly when its bad , evil effects also are bit quicker coming into 
life .
 
I would be highly obliged if somebody tell me how to get favourable effects 
from malefic Rahu quickly ??
 
pls explain about Guru--Rahu Bhraman in karamasthana and how to overcome its 
ill effects
 
Regards
Shilpa







  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[gullible fool]

 
Thanks for clarifying.
  
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only 
love. 
 
- Amma  

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:

From: enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear 
at the concert
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 10:44 PM

the man pretending to be a woman is his reference to me. he has also 
guessed at my identity several other times, calling me a blond 
(derogatory reference for him), someone who does and then doesn't 
practice TM, someone who claims to be enlightened, and then doesn't, 
all kinds of imaginings; I am a bullshit artist-- Barry Wright. 

it drives him crazy that i choose not to reveal more about myself, 
AND that i disagree with him. 

if i played the sycophant to Barry's postings, he wouldn't care if i 
was a three legged chicken with a mohawk who used to call himself 
Sally.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gullible fool ffl...@... 
wrote:

 
 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman...
  
 I spend so little time now reading the posters that fall into the 
troll and nutbar category that I do not even know to which poster 
you are referring.
  
 Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no 
`you,' only love. 
  
 - Amma  
 
 --- On Sun, 2/15/09, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] 
Ringo will appear at the concert
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 7:12 PM
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
 wrote:
 
  On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
  
   Just as a question, does anyone else see the
   fascination with this concert as a little sad?
  
  Yep, just thinking the same thing.
 
 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman and a woman who doesn't even 
 bother any more to pretend to be a human 
 being.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 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: Golden Rule found in most major religions

[Duveyoung]

Hmmm, does the golden rule mean that a sado-masochist is being
encouraged to go around spanking everyone?

Always loop holes everywhere.

I had a chemistry professor tell the class that the coloring schema of
pills were one of the pharmacological industry's ways of underlining
that each type was going to have a different effect.

I said, But, MMs, then, are almost singlehandedly counter-acting
that effort.

He looked at me with a sour face, but nodded a point my way.  Once
again I'd interrupted his lecture with a conceptual pun that he was
entertained by enough to allow the distraction. 

That's how I do unto others.

Explains a lot, eh?

Edg 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote:

 
 
 Did you know that there's a version of the Golden Rule in most (maybe
 all) major religions? Here are translations of some religious texts:
 
 
 CHRISTIANITY
 
 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
 do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. 
 - Matthew 7:12
 
 
 JUDAISM
 
 What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
 Law; all the rest is commentary. 
 - Talmud, Shabbat, 312
 
 
 HINDUISM
 
 This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you
 pain if done to you. 
 - Mahabharata, 5, 1517
 
 
 CONFUCIANISM
 
 Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you
 would not have them do unto you. 
 - Analects, 15, 23
 
 
 TAOISM
 
 Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss
 as your own loss. 
 - T'sai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
 
 
 BUDDHISM
 
 Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful. 
 - Udana-Varga, 5, 18
 
 
 ZOROASTRIANISM
 
 That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another
 whatsoever is not good for itself. 
 - Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5
 
 
 ISLAM
 
 No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that
 which he desires for himself. 
 - Sunnah
 
 
 JAINISM
 
 One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be
 treated.
 - Mahavira, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
   
 
 BAHA'I FAITH
 
 Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon
 you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for
 yourself.
 - Baha'u'llah

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@
 wrote:
 
  On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:22 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
  
   Just as a question, does anyone else see the
   fascination with this concert as a little sad?
  
  Yep, just thinking the same thing.
 
 Even sadder in a way to think about is 
 how much it says about the long-term 
 reality of TM (as opposed to its claims)
 when its two most compulsive defenders 
 on this forum are a man pretending to 
 be a woman and a woman who doesn't even 
 bother any more to pretend to be a human 
 being.


Nyah you don't have a problem with people that disagree with you, Unk.


L

[FairfieldLife] Whatever is done by Brahma is done by you

[bob_brigante]

Yogavasistha

Manu:

Know that whatever is done by Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva is done by
you.

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[satvadude108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@... wrote:

 the man pretending to be a woman is his reference to me. he has also 
 guessed at my identity several other times, calling me a blond 
 (derogatory reference for him), someone who does and then doesn't 
 practice TM, someone who claims to be enlightened, and then doesn't, 
 all kinds of imaginings; I am a bullshit artist-- Barry Wright. 
 
 it drives him crazy that i choose not to reveal more about myself, 
 AND that i disagree with him. 
 
 if i played the sycophant to Barry's postings, he wouldn't care if i 
 was a three legged chicken with a mohawk who used to call himself 
 Sally.
 

Thanks Jim.

Glad you cleared that up.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Golden Rule found in most major religions

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote:

 Hmmm, does the golden rule mean that a sado-masochist is being
 encouraged to go around spanking everyone?
 
 Always loop holes everywhere.
 
 I had a chemistry professor tell the class that the coloring 
schema of
 pills were one of the pharmacological industry's ways of 
underlining
 that each type was going to have a different effect.
 
 I said, But, MMs, then, are almost singlehandedly counter-acting
 that effort.
 
 He looked at me with a sour face, but nodded a point my way.  Once
 again I'd interrupted his lecture with a conceptual pun that he was
 entertained by enough to allow the distraction. 
 
 That's how I do unto others.
 
 Explains a lot, eh?
 
 Edg 
 
don't you think the different colored mms all taste different as a 
result of their color? even though i know logically otherwise, they 
seem to...

more interesting to me is how they get that candy shell around the 
mm so evenly-- why doesn't the shell material pool at the bottom of 
the mm, or if it is a mold, why do you not see the seam lines? and 
for peanut mms, how do they get the chocolate an even thickness 
around each peanut without it pooling on the bottom, like it does 
with Brach's chocolate covered peanuts?

c'mon people, these are the questions of our generation!

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Re: [Fairfield_Community_Kiosk] Ringo will appear at the concert

[enlightened_dawn11]

sure Pete or Frank or Crystal, no problem...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 no_re...@... 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 
no_reply@ wrote:
 
  the man pretending to be a woman is his reference to me. he has 
also 
  guessed at my identity several other times, calling me a blond 
  (derogatory reference for him), someone who does and then 
doesn't 
  practice TM, someone who claims to be enlightened, and then 
doesn't, 
  all kinds of imaginings; I am a bullshit artist-- Barry 
Wright. 
  
  it drives him crazy that i choose not to reveal more about 
myself, 
  AND that i disagree with him. 
  
  if i played the sycophant to Barry's postings, he wouldn't care 
if i 
  was a three legged chicken with a mohawk who used to call 
himself 
  Sally.
  
 
 Thanks Jim.
 
 Glad you cleared that up.

[FairfieldLife] The Case for Nancy Pelosi's Immediate Forced Resignation

[arhatafreespeech]

 http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3605pelosi_forced_resignation.html

http://www.freedomofspeech.netfirms.com/


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: LaRouche: Stop Dope, Inc.'s Takeover of World Economy

[Arhata Osho]

 


 http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3605stop_dope_world.html


  

[FairfieldLife] Former astronaut doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming

[shempmcgurk]

Former astronaut speaks out on global warming
By Associated Press
Sunday, February 15, 2009 - Added 7h ago



SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the 
moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe 
that humans are causing global warming.

I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the 
natural effect, said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to 
speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in 
New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists are being intimidated if they 
disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon 
dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when 
they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that 
we're in a human-caused global warming, Schmitt said.

Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, 
which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited 
Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary 
Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human 
activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued 
that the global warming scare is being used as a political tool to 
increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision 
making.

Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are 
proclaiming in global warming.

Not that the planet hasn't warmed. We know it has or we'd all still 
be in the Ice Age, he said. But it has not reached a crisis 
proportion and, even among us skeptics, there's disagreement about 
how much man has been responsible for that warming.

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have 
risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in 
carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level 
have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes 
are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, 
the Great Lakes are rising because the earth's crust is rebounding 
from being depressed by glaciers.

Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has 
a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also 
studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a 
doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.

In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of 
the Apollo 17 mission.

Schmitt said he's heartened that the upcoming conference is made up 
of scientists who haven't been manipulated by politics.

Of the global warming debate, he said: It's one of the few times 
you've seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective 
take a political position and it's coloring their objectivity.

___

Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, 
http://www.sfnewmexican.com