date:20090418

Marek,

Thanks for your feedback on this and related posts. They have helped me further 
my thinking.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>  
> **snip
> 
> > If student independently elects and applies to a charter school that is 
> > upfront that: i) it has a silent time, and ii) DLF will teach students for 
> > free off campus for those who elect to do so,  that would appear to meet 
> > the general criteria above.
> > 
> > Do you see a legal argument against that?
> > 
> 
> **snip to end
> 
> No, that would seem totally acceptable.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Nelson  wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Probably most of the gasoline you used
> > > > > getting to the hospital was refined in
> > > > > Texas.
> > > > >
> > > raunchydog
> > > > I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself
> > > > on fire than live in a gun toting Texas.
> > > >
> > > So, you do use gasoline refined in Texas.
> > >
> >   Shouldn't be wasting gas anyway.
> >  Not having armed citizens makes it safer?
> >  That reminds me of the problem they had at VA tech with their safe campus.
> >
> 
> And also the Columbine slaughter.  If every teacher had been armed it would
> have gone down a different way.
>
In my high school in Philadelphia, which had about 5,000 students...
I'm afraid if some of those teachers were armed, many of us wouldn't have made 
it out of there, alive, as we hardly survived without the guns...
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> Vaj wrote:
> > People seem to forget to mention that they're 
> > not just kneeling, they're kneeling in front 
> > of someone, who in English translation is  
> > "the Guru God" ("Guru Dev"). Hello?
> > 
> Buddhists all over the world bow down in front 
> of someone almost every day, but Buddhism isn't 
> a religion and there's no 'God' in it. Hello?
>
In TM, you're bowing to the ones who passed down the knowledge of liberation.
In Buddhism, same thing; you're bowing down for the one who passed down the 
knowledge.
In Christianity you bow down before a statue, same as Buddhism.
The Jewish people bow down to the knowledge passed down as the Torah.
And so on...

In reality, if you want to bow down to God, you could bow down before a tree; 
because remember: 'Only God can make a tree'...
R.g.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:41 AM, raunchydog  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
> > wrote:
> >
> > I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself on fire than live in a gun toting 
> > Texas.
> >
> 
> But doncha see?  This is the state GW Bush got his start in ... Oh, never 
> mind.
>
LBJ got his start there also, you forgot to mention him.
He was into war and guns also.
JFK got his life ended there, you forgot to mention that, also.
I think we should give Texas back to Mexico...it has more of a Mexican Macho 
attitude, and would harmonize better with the hard working humble Christian 
Mexicans, and various other simple folk.
That way, everyone could have as many guns, drugs and avocados and thereby 
would solve the whole border problem.
We could call the new Republic: Texi-Mexi and with all the money Bush & Co. 
stole, could support the new Republic for at least a thousand years!
R.G.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Vaj wrote:
> People seem to forget to mention that they're 
> not just kneeling, they're kneeling in front 
> of someone, who in English translation is  
> "the Guru God" ("Guru Dev"). Hello?
> 
Buddhists all over the world bow down in front 
of someone almost every day, but Buddhism isn't 
a religion and there's no 'God' in it. Hello?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

> > And if all the instruction (including puja 
> > and checking) took place off school grounds?
> >
Marek Reavis wrote: 
> If you can't teach TM without the puja, 
> then you can't federally fund it in the 
> classroom.  If, however, a group of students 
> who had started TM on their own began their 
> own club, there would be no issue about that 
> as far as I could see.
> 
Public schools all get a holiday at Christmas 
and at Easter, but does that make the student 
a Christian?

The U.S. Constitution is replete with references 
to God. We have 'In God We Trust' and a 'Third 
Eye' on our money. So, when a student pays for
his lunch in the school cafeteria he's part of
a cult religion?

There's really no such thing as a total separation
of church and state. President Obama signed an 
executive order continuing the faith-based 
initiatives program created by former President 
Bush. Lots of towns have religious monuments in
front of the court house. The ten commandments 
are displayed in the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, we should abolish all goverment 
schools - they have failed and should all be 
discarded. The Department of Education and the 
Department of Energy are wasteful in the way 
they spend taxpayers' money and should be 
eliminated entirely.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Craigslist sex


On Apr 18, 2009, at 8:23 PM, bob_brigante wrote:

"Luckily for Melvin, what he had wandered into was something a bit  
more poignant: the woman who had answered his ad was obese and  
didn't want Melvin to see her body.


"It was sad, very sad," he said, "but she was a nice girl and we  
talked for two hours before we went in the bedroom and did what we  
did."


Gosh, bob, two adults having consensual sex...what a scandal.
Obviously they're wallowing in the Age of Ignorance.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread Mike Doughney

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>  
> **snip
> 
> > If student independently elects and applies to a charter school that 
> > is upfront that: i) it has a silent time, and ii) DLF will teach 
> > students for free off campus for those who elect to do so,  that 
> > would appear to meet the general criteria above.
> > 
> > Do you see a legal argument against that?
> > 
> 
> **snip to end
> 
> No, that would seem totally acceptable.

Sectarian charter schools - that is, a charter school supported by
public funds - are not permitted. A non-sectarian curriculum must
be used during school hours. Having student behavior be evaluated on the
basis of whether or not they submit to group meditation during school
hours would likely run afoul of this, given the finding in Malnak, but
as usual the courts would be the arbiter of this.

It hasn't been clear the degree to which participation in the TM program
has been voluntary in the schools that DLF has been involved with.

While various local TMO functionaries here and there have announced that
the DLF funds are available, there's been no press coverage that 
would suggest that there have been any new schools taking Lynch up on 
his offer. A summary of press coverage the TMO has received since the end
of March can be seen on the map at http://tinyurl.com/lynchianeducation

Since the DLF offer appears to apply worldwide, I suspect that a lot
of that money will not be going to public school programs in the U.S.
but will instead be going to poorer countries where $600 comes close
to covering one student's private school tuition for a year.

It's my personal opinion that after it's clear that few if any
Western schools will accept the DLF offer, most of the money will be used to 
subsidize the TMO's schools in India, in keeping with the usual
modus operandi that one of the primary functions of the TMO is
the extraction of wealth from Westerners that is used to support
various projects in India, projects that come with religious and
nationalistic agendas.

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

> > I admit to going to that energy level in 
> > my word usage, but in real life over here 
> > behind the keyboard, not so much...
> > 
TurquoiseB wrote: 
> Edg, I was going to let this slide as just 
> another example of YOU lashing out...
>
Go get him, Tiger!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread Vaj



On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:51 PM, bob_brigante wrote:

This should have been a warning sign from the start, but so many of  
us

knew so little about these Indian traditions, we simply didn't know
better. It turns out, there's really very little left of the Vedic
tradition in terms of spiritual practices.

As the tradition of Guru Dev puts it:

"The Hindu religion, as it is practiced today, is tantric in
character, based almost exclusively on the Agama(s). Virtually  
nothing

remains of the Vedic religion.


*

This is complete nonsense, of course. Those who want to read about  
the reality of Guru Dev and MMY's Vedic knowledge can read this  
summary by MUM prof Ken Chandler:


http://www.mum.edu/msvs/Chandler1.html



It's just spiritual and historical fact in these traditions, (although  
some Vedic and caste supremacists do still try) Chandler's intro-- 
which used to be at the front the the "Modern Science and Vedic  
"Science"" journals, is quite hilarious but also quite pathetic. You  
have to feel for the MIU and MUM Vedic "science" grads when they get  
around knowledgeable scholars, it must be difficult for others to keep  
from laughing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Sorry for being so obtuse.  Yes, one could be a TM meditator and not get all 
hopped up on all the inside dope that becoming an initiator, governor, siddha, 
raja promised and somewhat delivered.  Not requiring the entire belief system 
in order to learn the technique is one of the reasons why there is some 
purchase for calling TM *not* a religion.

But if you go farther into the movement structure than just meditating, you 
find out quickly just how hindu the mindset and expectations were.  Not 
everything about Hindusism, at least at first, but the guru bhakti vibe (which 
I totally enjoyed) is a palpably religious one, grounded firmly in Hindu 
tradition.  Puja and yagyas and animations of Hindu gods kind of reinforces the 
religiosity, too.

What I meant about being reassured was just to piggyback on what Curtis had 
written at the beginning of this thread.  For those of us who came to TM 
looking for god realization and not deeper rest, there was an immediate 
acknowledgement that we were on the fast track to the real thing by the TM 
teachers.  They were into it just like we were.  Autobiography of a Yogi, Be 
Here Now, Krishnamurti, Ananda Marga, ISKCON -- all that stuff was out there 
and percolating in the 60s and 70s.  Lots of folks were riding on that kind of 
energy, and most of the TM initiators were riding that same wave.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Well said.  The seeds of later unfolding petals of
> > knowledge (to use an inelegant time-lapse metaphor)
> > were planted right at the beginning, I agree.  The
> > spiritual agenda was broached at the beginning,
> > however it wasn't emphasized.  You have to realize
> > that we had to soften the general audience up for
> > the preparatory lecture where we showed them the
> > picture of Guru Dev for the first time, and touch,
> > ever so delicately, on the Holy Tradition stuff.  I
> > mean, if they were going to be intitiated in a day
> > or two, they had to be somewhat prepared for the 
> > the puja.
> 
> And for most, that's as far as it went. There was no
> need for them to know any more about the metaphysics
> than they got in the three days of checking for them
> to make use of the technique.
> 
> Did you as a TM teacher consider yourself a failure
> if your students went off and practiced TM on their
> own, with an occasional checking session, and never
> came to any advanced lectures or went on residence
> courses or got any more deeply involved in the
> movement?
> 
> > But for those, like Curtis, myself, and many others 
> > at that time, we were looking for some hardcore
> > hinduism and the teachers gave us enough reassurance
> > that this was da kine to bring us in, as well.  It
> > was really well crafted at the time, for the time.
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't
> know what "was da kine to bring us in, as well" means,
> or how it relates to what we're talking about.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out why you think it was
> deceptive.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:33 PM, bob_brigante wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> The TM mantras, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on the  
> >> Hindu/Tantra traditions of India and have no independant utility  
> >> outside those traditions.  To the extent that TM represents the  
> >> first use of mantras "independent" of that religious tradition,  
> >> it's a weak example since the only argument is that the TMO  
> >> maintains that it isn't despite most other indications to the  
> >> contrary.
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > MMY always ascribed the source of TM as being the Veda:
> >
> > Veda: The Vedas, Source of the Subtle Science - by Maharishi, SRM  
> > Foundation, LA, 1967
> >
> > end of page: http://dns.org.uk/TMCafe/Quotes.htm
> 
> 



> This should have been a warning sign from the start, but so many of us  
> knew so little about these Indian traditions, we simply didn't know  
> better. It turns out, there's really very little left of the Vedic  
> tradition in terms of spiritual practices.
> 
> As the tradition of Guru Dev puts it:
> 
> "The Hindu religion, as it is practiced today, is tantric in  
> character, based almost exclusively on the Agama(s). Virtually nothing  
> remains of the Vedic religion. 

*

This is complete nonsense, of course. Those who want to read about the reality 
of Guru Dev and MMY's Vedic knowledge can read this summary by MUM prof Ken 
Chandler:

http://www.mum.edu/msvs/Chandler1.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread Vaj



On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:33 PM, bob_brigante wrote:



The TM mantras, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on the  
Hindu/Tantra traditions of India and have no independant utility  
outside those traditions.  To the extent that TM represents the  
first use of mantras "independent" of that religious tradition,  
it's a weak example since the only argument is that the TMO  
maintains that it isn't despite most other indications to the  
contrary.





MMY always ascribed the source of TM as being the Veda:

Veda: The Vedas, Source of the Subtle Science - by Maharishi, SRM  
Foundation, LA, 1967


end of page: http://dns.org.uk/TMCafe/Quotes.htm



This should have been a warning sign from the start, but so many of us  
knew so little about these Indian traditions, we simply didn't know  
better. It turns out, there's really very little left of the Vedic  
tradition in terms of spiritual practices.


As the tradition of Guru Dev puts it:

"The Hindu religion, as it is practiced today, is tantric in  
character, based almost exclusively on the Agama(s). Virtually nothing  
remains of the Vedic religion. The same applies to the Tibetan  
religion, itself also entirely tantric. Hindu philosophy is wrongly  
considered to be of Vedic origin. Through contrivances of exegesis,  
attempts were made to link concepts originating from an older and more  
developed culture to Vedic texts.


If we wish to understand Indian thought, we must return to its  
sources, that is, to the great civilization that preceded the arrival  
of the Aryans, which has continued to the present time and of which  
the Shaiva religion, the cosmological theory called Samkhyä, the  
practices of Yoga, as well as the bases of what we consider to be the  
Hindu philosophy, are part.


Although the Agama and the Purânä texts that have come down to us are  
relatively late writings, we find their mark in all the philosophical  
and religious conceptions of the Aryans from the Atharvä Veda onward.  
The disdain shown toward these texts by most of the modern  
Orientalists, who wanted to relate everything back to the Veda(s) (as,  
moreover, the Western world does to the Greeks), has led them to make  
monumental errors in dating and describing the evolution of religious  
and philosophical concepts. Many passages of the best-known texts of  
philosophical and religious brahmanic literature written in the  
Sanskrit language are derived from the Agama(s). This is the case  
with, for example, the Bhagavat Gitâ, of which over half the verses  
are borrowed from the Parameshvara Agama and three of which passages  
are quotations from the Shvetâshvatarä Upanishad, which is itself  
based on the Agama(s)."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Craigslist sex

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:23 PM, bob_brigante wrote:

> "Luckily for Melvin, what he had wandered into was something a bit more
> poignant: the woman who had answered his ad was obese and didn't want Melvin
> to see her body.
>
> "It was sad, very sad," he said, "but she was a nice girl and we talked for
> two hours before we went in the bedroom and did what we did."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/fashion/19craigslist.html
>

Watch out for Craigslist, dudes.  This guy placed a bogus ad on Craigslist
saying he was a woman looking for a dominant male.  He got 178 replies with
pictures, personal and business emails, real names, telephone numbers, which
he posted on a website.  He thought it was a cool prank.

I don't suppose the new list in FF has a personals section, eh?

http://waxy.org/2006/09/sex_baiting/

Sex Baiting Prank on Craigslist Affects Hundreds Posted Sep 8, 2006 (Updated
Apr 18, 2009)

Recently, a blogger named Simon Owens ran a social experiment on Craigslist.
He wandered into the "Casual
Encounters"
section of the personal ads where countless men and women were soliticing
for no-strings-attached sex and wondered, Is it really that easy? As a test,
he composed several ads with different permutations of assumed identity and
sexual orientation: straight/bi men/women looking for the opposite/same sex.
He then posted it to New York, Chicago, and Houston, and tallied the
results
.

Overwhelmingly and instantly, the ads from the fake women looking for male
partners were inundated with responses, sometimes several per minute. All
the other ads received lukewarm responses, at best. These results weren't
surprising, but some of the observations were... Many of these men used
their *real names* and included personally identifiable information,
including work email addresses and home phone numbers. Several admitted they
were married and cheating on their spouses. Many included photos, often
nude.

His first conclusion was very reasonable: "If a really malicious person
wanted to get on craigslist and ruin a lot of people's lives, he easily
could."
Jason Fortuny's Craigslist Experiment On Monday, a Seattle web developer
named Jason Fortuny  started his own
Craigslist experiment. The goal: "Posing as a submissive woman looking for
an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?"

He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit
ad(warning:
*not safe for work*) in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and
waited for the responses to roll in. Like Simon's experiment, the response
was immediate. He wrote, "178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various
states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal
and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and
telephone numbers."

In a staggering move, he then published *every single response*, unedited
and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia
Dramatica  (kinda like Wikipedia for
web fads and Internet drama). Read the
responses(
*warning*: sexually explicit material).

Instantly, commenters on the LiveJournal
threadstarted identifying
the men. Dissenters
emailed  the guys to let them
know they were scammed. Several of them were married, which has led to what
will likely be the first of many separations. One
couplein
an open marriage begged that their information be removed, as their
religious family and friends weren't aware of their lifestyle. Another
spotted a
fellow Microsoft employee, based on their e-mail address. And it's
really
just the beginning, since the major search engines haven't indexed these
pages yet. After that, who knows? Divorces, firings, lawsuits, and the
assorted hell that come from having your personal sex life listed as the
first search result for your name.

Possibly the strangest thing about this sex baiting prank is that the man
behind it is unabashedly open about his own identity. A graphic
artistin Kirkland, Washington, Jason has
repeatedly
posted his
contact information, including home phone, address, and
photos.
He's already received one
threatof physical
violence. Is he oblivious to the danger, or does he just not
care? Since his stated interest

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)


> The TM mantras, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on the Hindu/Tantra 
> traditions of India and have no independant utility outside those traditions. 
>  To the extent that TM represents the first use of mantras "independent" of 
> that religious tradition, it's a weak example since the only argument is that 
> the TMO maintains that it isn't despite most other indications to the 
> contrary.




MMY always ascribed the source of TM as being the Veda:

Veda: The Vedas, Source of the Subtle Science - by Maharishi, SRM Foundation, 
LA, 1967

end of page: http://dns.org.uk/TMCafe/Quotes.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

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

> If student independently elects and applies to a charter school that is 
> upfront that: i) it has a silent time, and ii) DLF will teach students for 
> free off campus for those who elect to do so,  that would appear to meet the 
> general criteria above.
> 
> Do you see a legal argument against that?
> 

**snip to end

No, that would seem totally acceptable.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Wine may have a rich history of religious use, but its general use is 
independent of any specific ritualistic use.  The commandment of wearing 
undergarments for Mormons doesn't make Fruit of the Loom or Victoria's Secret 
sectarian choices.

The TM mantras, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on the Hindu/Tantra 
traditions of India and have no independant utility outside those traditions.  
To the extent that TM represents the first use of mantras "independent" of that 
religious tradition, it's a weak example since the only argument is that the 
TMO maintains that it isn't despite most other indications to the contrary.

**



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Correct, mantras are not prayers; that was not my point.  And although they 
> > are semantically meaningless sounds, they have a rich history of very 
> > specific religious and ritual associations and meanings, not fundamentally 
> > different in how an adherent of either religion (Catholic or Hindu) would 
> > appreciate them.
> 
> 
> Wine has a rich history of very specific religious and ritual associations 
> and meanings? Does that make drinking wine religions?
> 
> The problem I have with some of this (wider )discussion is criteria is being 
> used selectively for meditation when there are other things that meet the 
> criteria but are not restricted for first amendment reasons.
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> > So my point was not that mantras are prayers, even though I understand that 
> > both are religion based, and do not exist independently from their 
> > religions, except in a very careful, and thin, argument.  Again, anyone can 
> > say the Catholic rosary without the slightest belief in any of the 
> > religious underpinnings, and that is entirely analogous to the TMO's 
> > argument that the silent repetition of Hindu mantras after a Hindu puja is 
> > not religious.  But under a church/state analysis, it doesn't pass muster.
> > 
> > And I believe that many private citizens would and will object to its 
> > promotion in the schools, even under the DLF.
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say
> > > > with the Catholic rosary, that "we're giving you all
> > > > the salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."
> > > > I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a
> > > > Heavenly Father to say those prayers.  They're just
> > > > words.  They're essentially just sounds, you don't
> > > > have to attribute any meaning to them.  And if you
> > > > don't know the english language, all the better,
> > > > because that way you won't even be distracted by the
> > > > meaning behind the prayers that the people who do
> > > > know english and do practice Catholicism say they
> > > > mean.
> > > > 
> > > > It's exactly the same.
> > > 
> > > Wow, Marek. Ingenious argument, but fundamentally
> > > sophistic.
> > > 
> > > TM mantras aren't prayers in *any* language; they're
> > > semantically meaningless sounds.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Craigslist sex

"Luckily for Melvin, what he had wandered into was something a bit more 
poignant: the woman who had answered his ad was obese and didn't want Melvin to 
see her body. 

"It was sad, very sad," he said, "but she was a nice girl and we talked for two 
hours before we went in the bedroom and did what we did."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/fashion/19craigslist.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Nelson  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Probably most of the gasoline you used
> > > > getting to the hospital was refined in
> > > > Texas.
> > > >
> > raunchydog
> > > I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself
> > > on fire than live in a gun toting Texas.
> > >
> > So, you do use gasoline refined in Texas.
> >
>   Shouldn't be wasting gas anyway.
>  Not having armed citizens makes it safer?
>  That reminds me of the problem they had at VA tech with their safe campus.
>

And also the Columbine slaughter.  If every teacher had been armed it would
have gone down a different way.

Re: [FairfieldLife] FW: Unsubscription by FairfieldLife member

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Rick Archer  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Yahoo! Groups
> Notification
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:31 PM
> To: fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Unsubscription by FairfieldLife member
>

Great! Now if only we can get some more blowhards like Edward and Barry to
leave, I won't have to do so much email deleting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The gift of Maharishi to His friends

do.rflex wrote:
> I'm not an atheist.
>
From: John Manning
Subject: Mammon over God 
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: February 26, 2002  

Sounds like a Hindu version of a Christian 
fundamentalist pitch for money. Only in this 
case, the money itself is referred to as God
(Brahm). Yikes! Maharishi has chosen mammon 
over God. And it shows. Guru Dev never 
accepted money.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

2009-04-18 Thread Nelson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
wrote:
>
> > > Probably most of the gasoline you used 
> > > getting to the hospital was refined in 
> > > Texas.
> > >
> raunchydog 
> > I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself 
> > on fire than live in a gun toting Texas.
> >
> So, you do use gasoline refined in Texas.
>
  Shouldn't be wasting gas anyway.
  Not having armed citizens makes it safer?
  That reminds me of the problem they had at VA tech with their safe campus.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

2009-04-18 Thread FFL PostCount

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Apr 18 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat Apr 25 00:00:00 2009
109 messages as of (UTC) Sun Apr 19 00:06:55 2009

17 authfriend 
14 Marek Reavis 
 9 Rick Archer 
 9 "grate.swan" 
 7 raunchydog 
 6 TurquoiseB 
 4 lurkernomore20002000 
 4 bob_brigante 
 4 Robert 
 4 I am the eternal 
 3 nablusoss1008 
 3 Sal Sunshine 
 3 Kirk 
 3 "Richard J. Williams" 
 2 enlightened_dawn11 
 2 dhamiltony2k5 
 2 Vaj 
 2 Nelson 
 2 Duveyoung 
 2 Bhairitu 
 1 curtisdeltablues 
 1 cardemaister 
 1 arhatafreespe...@yahoo.com
 1 Hugo 
 1 Arhata Osho 
 1 Alex Stanley 
 1 "do.rflex" 

Posters: 27
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: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

> > Probably most of the gasoline you used 
> > getting to the hospital was refined in 
> > Texas.
> >
raunchydog 
> I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself 
> on fire than live in a gun toting Texas.
>
So, you do use gasoline refined in Texas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread dhamiltony2k5

  
> 
> But, for clarity: regarding the mandated "quiet time" -- is that >something 
> that's already designated in schools?  Or is it only in >those schools who 
> decide to participate in the TM program?


Om, my daughter is taking community college level courses up in St. Paul, Minn 
where a teacher holds a 10 minute quiet-time meditation in the classroom during 
each class.  They are lead to be 'quiet' during the time... to be meditative, 
for ten minutes and in their case they may journalize about the time 
afterwards.  Is not a time to just read or do whatever, but is set up to be 
meditative.  

Very secular meditation but time within a public community college setting.  Is 
just the initiative of the instructor for the students and the classroom time.  
Federally funded State community college. 

Given all the TM problems, this is proly where the DLF effort to introduce 
TMorg TM into the classroom will get to for all the larger good reasons.

-D

Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread Kirk

Listen dipshit, there's nothing different in what Rick did then in what your 
Creme inadvertantly did by misappropriating the Theosophists teachings after 
they had died and no longer could object. You uphold and flag wave watered 
down and corrupted Tibetan Buddhist teachings without knowing anything! You 
blind oaf.

- Original Message - 
From: "nablusoss1008" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:41 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist 
"monasteries")


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
>
> There are already such forums.
>
> Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt.
>
>
>> And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer !
>> Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of 
>> speech?
>
> No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool 
> and a simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" 
> you sat in motion on the internet.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> 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] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:42 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
"monasteries")

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

There are already such forums.

Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt.

> And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! 
> Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of
speech?

No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool and
a simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" you sat
in motion on the internet.
Nabby, you underrate me. I invented the Internet.

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread nablusoss1008

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

 There are already such forums.

Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt.

> And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! 
> Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of speech?

No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool and a 
simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" you sat in 
motion on the internet.

[FairfieldLife] FW: Unsubscription by FairfieldLife member

-Original Message-
From: fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Yahoo! Groups
Notification
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:31 PM
To: fairfieldlife-ow...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Unsubscription by FairfieldLife member

Hello,

This is an automated email message to let you know that
arhatafreespeech  unsubscribed from your
FairfieldLife 
group.

Your group is currently configured to send you email
notification whenever a member unsubscribes.  To turn off
notification, visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join

Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups as your email group
service for the FairfieldLife group.

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment


> 
> Once we go back to being a republic, we'll institute a bunch more
> law/order/penalty policies.  I'm sure we can invade Mexico and fix
> their problems mighty quick.  One of their problems, of course, is
> that they are not permitted to carry guns out in the open or
> concealed.
> 

***

Nah, Mexico is not the big problem -- it's those dam Canucks trying to steal 
our citizens:

"In the video 'Waking Up Canadian,' a man goes to sleep in a drab room and 
wakes up to find out that he's become a citizen of Canada. Surrounded by flags, 
maple-leaf-shaped cookies and a canister of maple syrup, he's welcomed by a 
hockey player, two plush moose and a uniformed Mountie.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993183347727843.html

RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:38 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
"monasteries")

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 ]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
> "monasteries")
> 
> Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic
accusations 
> They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and
you
> seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily
> threatened by contradictory evidence. 

Right. And what "evidence" are you Mr. Rick Archer able to cough up ?

Nothing whatsoever, nada, rien. 
No semen-stained sari, if that's what you mean. 

You are a forwarder of rumours and lies, the king of rumour-mongers, 
Raja Rumor!
having created your own forum in which you felt it was legimite to try to
drag your former Guru into the mud. 
The purpose of this forum is to openly discuss anything people want to
discuss. Understandably, there are some things the TMO would rather were not
discussed.
Within months you will find the same kind of forums dragging your present
Guru into the mud with false lies and accusations. 
There are already such forums.
And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! 
Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of speech?

Quite an achievement to think of at the time of death, don't you think ?
I'd be flattered if you think of me when you die, Nabby.

[FairfieldLife] fairlist.org

http://www.ottumwa.com/local/local_story_107230340.html

excerpt

Pillman's first move was to get 50 or so friends and acquaintances to write 
craigslist and ask the company to add Fairfield. The effort went nowhere. The 
site was simply not interested.

So Pillman, again acting as any self-respecting 20-something would, decided 
last October to start her own site. The result was fairlist.org, a site aimed 
at Fairfield-area residents and their buying, swapping, 
just-get-it-out-of-my-house instincts.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM, bob_brigante  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
>> I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself on fire than live in a gun toting 
>> Texas.
>>
>
> **
>
> I believe you would have to choose that highoctane option in a number of 
> places, like here in So Cal, where we regularly shoot folks who piss us off 
> on the freeway or steal a parking space we were aiming for. We don't need any 
> stinking concealed weapon carry laws!
>

Such a coincidence that our concealed carry law test was in Dallas,
home of traffic lights which take 15+ cycles to get through.  A geeky
guy absentmindedly bumped into the back of this Meskin's pickup truck
at one of those lights.  The Meskin flew out of his truck, in a rage.
The Meskin raged and raged then went back to his truck and got a tire
iron.  He brandished the tire iron at the geeky driver, who was not
protected by his side window.  The geeky guy took aim and fired,
exactly as taught in his mandatory shooters ed. course a few weeks
before.  The Dallas County prosecutor decided that since this was the
first case of the concealed weapon law, he'd have to take it to the
grand jury.  The grand jury no billed it.  Since then, the number of
traffic/parking related altercations involving weapons is down
dramatically.

An armed society is a polite society.

Once we go back to being a republic, we'll institute a bunch more
law/order/penalty policies.  I'm sure we can invade Mexico and fix
their problems mighty quick.  One of their problems, of course, is
that they are not permitted to carry guns out in the open or
concealed.

Man, we can put those bumper stickers on your cars the way we used to:
 Drive 70 freeze a Yankee.

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread nablusoss1008

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
> "monasteries")
>  
> Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations 
> They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you
> seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily
> threatened by contradictory evidence. 

Right. And what "evidence" are you Mr. Rick Archer able to cough up ?

Nothing whatsoever, nada, rien. 

You are a forwarder of rumours and lies, the king of rumour-mongers, having 
created your own forum in which you felt it was legimite to try to drag your 
former Guru into the mud. 
Within months you will find the same kind of forums dragging your present Guru 
into the mud with false lies and accusations. And who started this trend ? Mr. 
Rick Archer ! 

Quite an achievement to think of at the time of death, don't you think ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
> >
> > raunchydog wrote:
> > > I had a bunch of drugs today for an endoscopy 
> > > and colonoscopy, so I'm struggling with writing 
> > > in slow motion and making some pretty dumb typos. 
> > >
> > Because you're on drugs is no excuse to be prejudiced 
> > against Texans. Probably most of the gasoline you
> > used getting to the hospital was refined in Texas.
> >
> 

> I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself on fire than live in a gun toting 
> Texas.
>

**

I believe you would have to choose that highoctane option in a number of 
places, like here in So Cal, where we regularly shoot folks who piss us off on 
the freeway or steal a parking space we were aiming for. We don't need any 
stinking concealed weapon carry laws!

[FairfieldLife] Hair Stylist Keeps Armed Robber as Sex Slave




Hair Stylist Keeps Armed Robber as Sex Slave

15 April 2009

By Carl Schreck / The Moscow Times

In what is either the weirdest Russian crime
story of the year so far or a new low in 
yellow crime journalism, a female hair stylist 
in the Kaluga region is suspected of holding 
an armed robber in captivity as a sex slave 
for two days after he unsuccessfully tried to 
knock over her beauty salon. 
  
Attentive Crime Watch readers will need little 
more than the first paragraph of this post to 
understand that this bizarre saga was relayed 
by the intrepid crime hacks over at the web 
site Life.ru, which, together with newspaper 
Tvoi Den, is setting the bar extremely high 
for sensationalist scoops. 
  
According to Life.ru, the events unfolded on 
the evening of March 14 as the stylist was 
wrapping up her shift at the salon in the 
Kaluga region town of Meshchovsk. 
  
The robber, a 32-year-old man identified by 
Life.ru as "Viktor," burst into the salon at 
around 5 p.m. waving a pistol and ordered all 
of the stylists and clients to hit the floor 
and toss him their money. 
  
At this point, 28-year-old Olga, whom Life.ru 
describes as a "delicate" girl trained in 
martial arts, was apparently still standing 
when she offered to hand over her cash. But 
when Viktor tried to accept her contribution, 
Olga surprised him with a quick punch to the 
chest, knocking the wind out of him before she 
flipped him to the ground. 
  
Olga proceeded to tie Viktor up with a hair-
dryer cord, gagged him and dragged him into a 
storage room. 
  
Curiously, Life.ru reports, Olga instructed 
the others to keep working, telling them that 
the police would soon arrive. 
  
But this feel-good moment for the good guy 
proved ephemeral. Things soon turned ugly, 
according to Life.ru. 
  
The police did not come. And after the other 
stylists and clients went home for the 
evening, Olga told Viktor to "take off his 
underwear" and, with apologies to John Cougar 
Mellencamp, let her do as she pleases, lest 
she call the cops, Life.ru said. 
  
She tied him to the radiator with handcuffs 
covered in frilly pink fabric, gave him some 
Viagra and had her way with him several times 
over the next 48 hours. When she finally let 
him go on the evening of March 16, Viktor had 
been "squeezed like a lemon," Life.ru 
reported. 
  
First, he went to the hospital to have his 
injured genitals treated; then he went to 
police and filed a complaint asking that Olga 
be brought up on criminal charges for 
committing "actions of a sexual nature" that 
left him with injured sexual organs, according 
to a copy of the complaint posted on Life.ru. 
  
Olga was apparently incensed when she learned 
of the complaint. She had, after all, even 
tried to be nice to her purported captive. 
 
"What a jerk," Life.ru quoted her as saying. 
"Yeah, there were a few times. But I bought 
him new jeans, gave him food and drink, and 
gave him 1,000 rubles when he left." 
  
The following day, Olga filed a complaint with 
police, asking that Viktor be charged in the 
salon robbery. Life.ru posted a copy of her 
statement as well. 
  
"I don't know what's going to happen now," the 
web site quoted a local police officer as 
saying. "We could put both of them behind 
bars: him for robbery, her for rape and 
assault." 
  
I'm exhausted. 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1292/42/376242.htm

http://tinyurl.com/cqaead

[FairfieldLife] Obama's double homicide

Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On
Obama's Double-Homicide

April 14, 2009

WASHINGTONMore than a week after President
Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local
couple, members of the American news media
admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to
find the best angle for covering the gruesome
crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's
home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff
and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though,
it's probably best to just sit back and wait for
more information to come in. After all, the only
thing we know for sure is that our president
senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans
without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."

Since the killings took place, reporters across
the country have struggled to come up with an
appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some
wondering whether it warrants front-page
coverage, and others questioning its relevance in
a fast-changing media landscape.

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick
Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening
News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story
about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty
president who likes to kill people? Or is it more
of an examination of how Obama's unusual
upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he
would one day viciously butcher two helpless
citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool
now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are
a million different angles on this one."

So far, the president's double-homicide has not
been covered by any major news outlets. The only
two mentions of the heinous tragedy have been a
100-word blurb on the Associated Press wire and
an obituary on page E7 of this week's edition of
the Lake County Examiner.

While Obama has expressed no remorse for the
grisly murders-point-blank shootings with an
unregistered .38-caliber revolver-many
journalists said it would be irresponsible for
the press to sensationalize the story.

"There's been some debate around the office about
whether we should report on this at all,"
Washington Post senior reporter Bill Tracy said
while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's
enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in
and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the
violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the
victims' families at this time. Their loved ones
were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

Nevertheless, a small contingent of independent
journalists has begun to express its disapproval
and growing shock over the president's actions.

"I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but we are
in the midst of an economic crisis here,"
political pundit Marcus Reid said. "Why was our
president ritualistically dismembering the
corpses of his prey when he should have been
working on a new tax proposal for small
businesses? I, for one, am outraged."

The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still
undecided on whether or not to print a recent
letter received from Obama, in which the
president threatens to kill another helpless
citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly
palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the
police "stop the darkness from screaming."

"President Obama's letter presents us with a
classic journalistic quandary," executive editor
Bill Keller said. "If we print it, then we're
giving him control over the kinds of stories we
choose to run. It would be an acknowledgment that
we somehow give the nation's commander in chief
special treatment."

Added Keller, "And that's just not how the press
in this country works."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/media_having_trouble_finding_right?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

http://tinyurl.com/cnrkw3

RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Kirk
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:14 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
"monasteries")

Yeah Baba o Nablus au Pakistan, Rick humours you because he sees what a foul
critter you are, and frankly, I believe that as a service to humankind he
allows you to emote here rather than at a post office with a gun.

I always feel that FFL would be much less entertaining without Nabby.

I have to praise his fortitude, taking one for the team. Rick, I raise a
glass to you. 

Thanks, Kirk. I must confess that I've had one beer since the one you gave
me when you were cooking the NOLA benefit dinner in FF. Should I go to AA?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Well said.  The seeds of later unfolding petals of
> knowledge (to use an inelegant time-lapse metaphor)
> were planted right at the beginning, I agree.  The
> spiritual agenda was broached at the beginning,
> however it wasn't emphasized.  You have to realize
> that we had to soften the general audience up for
> the preparatory lecture where we showed them the
> picture of Guru Dev for the first time, and touch,
> ever so delicately, on the Holy Tradition stuff.  I
> mean, if they were going to be intitiated in a day
> or two, they had to be somewhat prepared for the 
> the puja.

And for most, that's as far as it went. There was no
need for them to know any more about the metaphysics
than they got in the three days of checking for them
to make use of the technique.

Did you as a TM teacher consider yourself a failure
if your students went off and practiced TM on their
own, with an occasional checking session, and never
came to any advanced lectures or went on residence
courses or got any more deeply involved in the
movement?

> But for those, like Curtis, myself, and many others 
> at that time, we were looking for some hardcore
> hinduism and the teachers gave us enough reassurance
> that this was da kine to bring us in, as well.  It
> was really well crafted at the time, for the time.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't
know what "was da kine to bring us in, as well" means,
or how it relates to what we're talking about.

I'm still trying to figure out why you think it was
deceptive.

[FairfieldLife] Scientist Tests Lincoln DNA for Cancer

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892291,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/ckgwn6

Time
By AP / RON TODT Friday, Apr. 17, 2009

(PHILADELPHIA) — John Sotos has a theory about why Abraham Lincoln was
so tall, why he appeared to have lumps on his lips and even why he had
gastrointestinal problems.
The 16th president, he contends, had a rare genetic disorder — one
that would likely have left him dead of cancer within a year had he
not been assassinated. And his bid to prove his theory has posed an
ethical and scientific dilemma for a small Philadelphia museum in the
year that marks the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth.

Framed behind glass in the Grand Army of the Republic Civil War Museum
and Library in northeast Philadelphia is a small piece of bloodstained
pillowcase on which the head of the dying president rested after he
was shot at Ford's Theater in Washington 144 years ago.

Sotos, a cardiologist and author, is hoping a DNA test of the strip
will reveal whether Lincoln was afflicted with multiple endocrine
neoplasia, type 2B. The disorder, which occurs in one in every 600,000
people, would explain Lincoln's unusual height, his relatively small
and asymmetric head and bumps on his lips seen in photos, he said.

The disorder leads to thyroid or adrenal cancer, and Sotos cites
Lincoln's weight loss in office and an appearance of ill health during
his final months. He said a finding that Lincoln had the genetic
disorder and probably cancer could shed light on his presidency. "I'm
not interested in how Lincoln might have died. I'm interested in how
he might have lived," Sotos said.

Several months ago, Sotos petitioned the museum for permission to test
the pillowcase. Gary Grove, a Civil War enthusiast who advised the
museum's board of directors, said the issue has been contentious in
several meetings. "There are strong voices both ways," Grove said. "It
has taken up a good portion of those board meetings."

Eric Schmincke, president of the museum and its board, said members
may decide at a meeting May 5. They must consider not only possible
damage to the artifact but also moral issues, he said. "You have to
look at it as questioning someone that more or less can't defend
themselves," Schmincke said.

Sotos, while declining to discuss the proposed DNA testing, pointed
out that Lincoln has no living direct descendants who would be
affected. "Every letter he every wrote has been published, every
letter his wife wrote that we can find has been published," he said.

Schmincke said genetic material goes far beyond writings. "That's him
— that's his blood, his brain matter that's on there," he said.
Schmincke also questioned what a positive result would mean.

"If they find it's cancer ... it's 140-plus years later," he said.
"Would it have been different? We can only guess or surmise."

If Lincoln was seriously ill and knew it, Sotos said, that might
explain stories of his premonitions about death. "I don't think it was
mysticism, I think that was him knowing what his body was telling
him," Sotos said. "Then if you're a historian, I think you have to say
... how does that affect how you run the war, your clemency toward
soldiers who may have deserted their post, the way you reconcile with
the South?"

One problem with his theory, which he acknowledges: People with MEN-2B
normally die young, and Lincoln was 56 when he was shot. And the
malady is only one of several ascribed to Lincoln; researchers in the
1960s suggested another genetic disorder, Marfan syndrome, to explain
his height, and others say his clumsy gait could have been due to
spinocerebellar ataxia.

Tests have been done on the remains of presidents to settle
controversies, most famously for evidence on whether Thomas Jefferson
fathered children of his slave, Sally Hemings, and to rule out arsenic
poisoning in the death of Zachary Taylor.

Other museums, however, have declined to do DNA tests on Lincoln artifacts.

Grove points out that while such material could shed light on history
or answer claims of descent, it could also lead to commercialization,
perhaps through sales of jewelry or other items embedded with famous
DNA.

And while it may be hard to say what Lincoln would have wanted, the
opinion of his surviving son seems clear. After repeated moves of
Lincoln's remains, as well as an 1876 plot to rob Lincoln's grave,
Robert Lincoln had his father's remains interred underground in 1901
in a steel cage encased in concrete in Springfield, Ill., where they
remain. "There," Grove said, "we probably have the closest thing of
someone saying, from the family point of view, 'Hey, let's not do
this.'"




To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individ

Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread Kirk

Yeah Baba o Nablus au Pakistan, Rick humours you because he sees what a foul 
critter you are, and frankly, I believe that as a service to humankind he 
allows you to emote here rather than at a post office with a gun.

I have to praise his fortitude, taking one for the team. Rick, I raise a glass 
to you. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Rick Archer 
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:46 PM
  Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist 
"monasteries")

  From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of nablusoss1008
  Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist 
"monasteries")

  Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations 

  They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you 
seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily threatened 
by contradictory evidence. I don't suggest that you accept every rumor that 
comes along, but you might find it liberating to shift your source of security 
from faith and idealistic thinking to an openness to what is. Your preachy, 
condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, which is blatantly obvious to 
everyone here, is just like that of the fundamentalist Christians, and for the 
same essential reason: ego aggrandizement.

  and even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" 

  Nabby, I'm limited to 2nd hand accounts because: 

  1.   I personally have never had sex with MMY, although I've talked with 
a couple of very credible women who say they have.

  2.   I was never one of MMY's personal secretaries, although I know many 
of them, and about half of them, during their tenure, became aware of these 
goings on.

  I find every word in my post to be justified.

  Then by golly it must be.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Correct, mantras are not prayers; that was not my
> point.  And although they are semantically meaningless
> sounds, they have a rich history of very specific
> religious and ritual associations and meanings, not
> fundamentally different in how an adherent of either
> religion (Catholic or Hindu) would appreciate them.

It's my understanding (from non-TM sources) that 
nobody knows how the bija mantras originated, and
that the associations almost certainly accrued well
after they started being used for meditation.

If that's the case, their appropriation for
religious use, no matter how rich that history may
be, doesn't seem to me to mean that they can now only
be used in the context of religion.

You can't say that of the rosary. We know where and
how it originated, and it was designed for strictly
religious purposes.

I think grate.swan's analogy with wine is apt.

> So my point was not that mantras are prayers, even
> though I understand that both are religion based,
> and do not exist independently from their religions,
> except in a very careful, and thin, argument.

Boy, I don't think it's thin at all; I think it's
fundamental and very solid.

> Again, anyone can say the Catholic rosary without
> the slightest belief in any of the religious
> underpinnings, and that is entirely analogous to
> the TMO's argument that the silent repetition of
> Hindu mantras after a Hindu puja is not religious.

*That* is what I'd call a thin argument!

> But under a church/state analysis, it doesn't pass
> muster.

Again, if the teaching is done off school grounds,
and the practice is entirely optional during a Quiet
Time period, with no state funding?

> And I believe that many private citizens would and
> will object to its promotion in the schools, even
> under the DLF.

I'm sure they will.

I supported the New Jersey decision on the basis of
Judge Adams's concurring opinion. I personally don't
understand TM-plus-SCI to be religious in nature--
metaphysical, yes, but not religious--but SCI is
*close enough* to warrant prohibition on the grounds
of erring on the side of caution in setting a
precedent that could be abused.

But with Lynch's program--no SCI, not funded by the
state, and instruction/puja done off school grounds--
I think it'll be a lot harder to make a case against
it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)


On Apr 18, 2009, at 2:13 PM, grate.swan wrote:

If student independently elects and applies to a charter school that  
is upfront that: i) it has a silent time, and ii) DLF will teach  
students for free off campus for those who elect to do so,  that  
would appear to meet the general criteria above.


And you expect a stampede for this, grate?
I wouldn't  hold my breath.


Do you see a legal argument against that?


I think all of this is moot because it seems unlikely
a) that anybody will even take Lynch up on this and
b) that the $$ will actually be there if a school does.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Universities have all sorts of openly religious groups from all sorts of 
> religions using university facilities to openly and notoriously practice 
> their religions and espouse their beliefs.  Using federal money to do so 
> (other than facility use alone) is not allowed.  Teaching the tenets of any 
> religions under a religious studies curriculum is allowed.  
> 
> High schools are different because students in high school are minors, high 
> school attendance is mandatory, and the state has a greater fiduciary 
> responsibility to keep everything neutral for the greater percentage of the 
> total population who are escorted through that doorway than the lower 
> percentage who voluntarily (and as legal adults) elect to attend 
> college/university.


If student independently elects and applies to a charter school that is upfront 
that: i) it has a silent time, and ii) DLF will teach students for free off 
campus for those who elect to do so,  that would appear to meet the general 
criteria above.

Do you see a legal argument against that?

> 
> I think that the David Lynch Foundation is more or less good intentioned, but 
> misguided (under the doctrine of separation of church and state) in their 
> plan to teach it in the high schools.  
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > GrateSwan, I think you're slicing the baloney too thin,
> > 
> > There are interesting if not important distinctions to be explored and 
> > understood, IMO. 
> > 
> > Let me try to recast them, the distinction between:
> > 
> > 1) learning and practicing. 
> > 
> > 2) religion-based and the practice of religion.
> > 
> > With just these two distinctions we have a 2 x 2 table with the following 
> > combinations:
> > 
> > 1) learning a religion
> > 2) learning something religious-based
> > 3) practicing a religion
> > 4) practicing something religious-based
> > 
> > Add to this to voluntary vs required 
> > 
> > Required 
> > 1) learning a religion
> > 2) learning something religious-based
> > 3) practicing a religion
> > 4) practicing something religious-based
> > 
> > Voluntarily
> > 5) learning a religion
> > 6) learning something religious-based
> > 7) practicing a religion
> > 8) practicing something religious-based
> > 
> > The Lynch program as I understand it, is only about option 8. Though much 
> > of the discussion seems to be blurring it all, with many of the other 
> > non-Lynch elements being bantered about as objections to his program.
> > 
> > Lets take Lynch and TM out of it. Lets say its #8 for a buddhist-based 
> > awareness meditation. 
> > 
> > A) Should that be prohibited from publicly high schools?  
> > 
> > B) Should that be prohibited from publicly universities?  
> > 
> > On the latter, universities, should any courses on hindism or buddhist 
> > courses be banned? 
> > 
> > What if the course involves a field trip to see some temples. Or a yagya?
> > 
> > Personally, I don't see # 8 in HS for buddist awareness meditation as a 
> > religions practice that should be banned from public HSs. An if it is, then 
> > I would expect a whole scale change and reduction of public university 
> > courses that have religious content. And certainly those that observe 
> > religions practices.
> > 
> > In my view, if you are objecting to #8 at public universities you are 
> > cutting the first amendment way too thin. HS? Still pretty thing -- so thin 
> > its transparent -- hold it up to a window and you can see light.
> > 
> > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, 
> > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
> > petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  though I appreciate the intent to be rigorously objective.  But it's not a 
> > Zeno's paradox thing; it's so clearly religious and in every aspect, 
> > *except* for the TMOs labored explanation/interpretation that has to be 
> > immediately inserted, which essentially boils down to "it just *looks* 
> > religious, but it's really not (it's a science actually)." 
> > > 
> > > That argument flys in the face of a "totality of the circumstances" 
> > > analysis.  If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable, 
> > > scientifically veriafiable effects on student's attitudes and grades, 
> > > would that justify teaching it or having the students practice it at 
> > > school?  
> > > 
> > > No, not under the federal Constitution.
> > > 
> > > This is exactly the same thing.
> > > 
> > > **
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard, the phrase "in need

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Correct, mantras are not prayers; that was not my point.  And although they 
> are semantically meaningless sounds, they have a rich history of very 
> specific religious and ritual associations and meanings, not fundamentally 
> different in how an adherent of either religion (Catholic or Hindu) would 
> appreciate them.


Wine has a rich history of very specific religious and ritual associations and 
meanings? Does that make drinking wine religions?

The problem I have with some of this (wider )discussion is criteria is being 
used selectively for meditation when there are other things that meet the 
criteria but are not restricted for first amendment reasons.

 

> 
> So my point was not that mantras are prayers, even though I understand that 
> both are religion based, and do not exist independently from their religions, 
> except in a very careful, and thin, argument.  Again, anyone can say the 
> Catholic rosary without the slightest belief in any of the religious 
> underpinnings, and that is entirely analogous to the TMO's argument that the 
> silent repetition of Hindu mantras after a Hindu puja is not religious.  But 
> under a church/state analysis, it doesn't pass muster.
> 
> And I believe that many private citizens would and will object to its 
> promotion in the schools, even under the DLF.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say
> > > with the Catholic rosary, that "we're giving you all
> > > the salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."
> > > I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a
> > > Heavenly Father to say those prayers.  They're just
> > > words.  They're essentially just sounds, you don't
> > > have to attribute any meaning to them.  And if you
> > > don't know the english language, all the better,
> > > because that way you won't even be distracted by the
> > > meaning behind the prayers that the people who do
> > > know english and do practice Catholicism say they
> > > mean.
> > > 
> > > It's exactly the same.
> > 
> > Wow, Marek. Ingenious argument, but fundamentally
> > sophistic.
> > 
> > TM mantras aren't prayers in *any* language; they're
> > semantically meaningless sounds.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Deceptive in the sense that there was a hidden agenda.  
> 
> Maharishi's original and lasting intention was to spiritually regenerate the 
> world.  TM was the original and fundamental vehicle to accomplish that 
> intention.  With more exposure to the greater world outside India, and with 
> the fortuitous results of Keith Wallace's doctoral research, Maharishi 
> re-crafted the message, but the intention remained the same and, as Curtis so 
> accurately depicted, many or most of the TM teachers understood that they 
> were spreading a message and a practice that was greater and more important 
> than the initial message we told potential inititates and new meditators.


Or, perhaps a more accurate way of saying it, or at least another view, is that 
many teachers were deceived / deceived themselves into thinking how grand they 
were and what great things they were doing for the world. And they did not 
reveal -- or give signs of thier deception to their students. And then 20 years 
later the teachers realized they had been rather clownish in their thinking, 
and projected great youthful import and naivety upon their work, and then 
joined FFL to work it all out.

If I think I am the greatest man alive, and I fail to reveal my thoughts to 
you, and later I realized I wasn't the greatest man alive, did I deceive you? 
Or did I simply deceive myself.




 
> The first step (meditation) was necessary, but it was just the start.
> 
> Again, I don't feel that it was all wrong, or done with bad intentions, but 
> it wasn't very honest.  I was willing to be dishonest for what I believed was 
> a higher principle.  I feel differently about that position now.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a
> > > throne decorated with specific religious symbols.
> > > 
> > > One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me
> > > personally, was gently guiding an initiate from a
> > > purely material, scientific POV of the world, into the
> > > wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy
> > > underlying the meditation.  At least getting them
> > > comfortable with the discussion.
> > > 
> > > That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight),
> > > but it was more than a little deceptive
> > 
> > In what way was it deceptive?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Well said.  The seeds of later unfolding petals of knowledge (to use an 
inelegant time-lapse metaphor) were planted right at the beginning, I agree.  
The spiritual agenda was broached at the beginning, however it wasn't 
emphasized.  You have to realize that we had to soften the general audience up 
for the preparatory lecture where we showed them the picture of Guru Dev for 
the first time, and touch, ever so delicately, on the Holy Tradition stuff.  I 
mean, if they were going to be intitiated in a day or two, they had to be 
somewhat prepared for the the puja.

But for those, like Curtis, myself, and many others at that time, we were 
looking for some hardcore hinduism and the teachers gave us enough reassurance 
that this was da kine to bring us in, as well.  It was really well crafted at 
the time, for the time.

Now, not so much.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> But Marek, the agenda *wasn't* hidden. In my intro lecture,
> the teacher was explicit that TM was a spiritual practice.
> I can't remember for sure exactly when I first heard the
> phrase "spiritually regenerate the world," but I'm pretty
> sure it was during the three days of checking, most likely
> the third day.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Deceptive in the sense that there was a hidden agenda.  
> > 
> > Maharishi's original and lasting intention was to spiritually regenerate 
> > the world.  TM was the original and fundamental vehicle to accomplish that 
> > intention.  With more exposure to the greater world outside India, and with 
> > the fortuitous results of Keith Wallace's doctoral research, Maharishi 
> > re-crafted the message, but the intention remained the same and, as Curtis 
> > so accurately depicted, many or most of the TM teachers understood that 
> > they were spreading a message and a practice that was greater and more 
> > important than the initial message we told potential inititates and new 
> > meditators.
> > 
> > The first step (meditation) was necessary, but it was just the start.
> > 
> > Again, I don't feel that it was all wrong, or done with bad intentions, but 
> > it wasn't very honest.  I was willing to be dishonest for what I believed 
> > was a higher principle.  I feel differently about that position now.
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a
> > > > throne decorated with specific religious symbols.
> > > > 
> > > > One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me
> > > > personally, was gently guiding an initiate from a
> > > > purely material, scientific POV of the world, into the
> > > > wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy
> > > > underlying the meditation.  At least getting them
> > > > comfortable with the discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight),
> > > > but it was more than a little deceptive
> > > 
> > > In what way was it deceptive?
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caprica

2009-04-18 Thread Bhairitu

TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> Not broadcast in the US but releases on DVD and "digital 
>> download" on Tuesday. Being that Universal is the parent 
>> company it may not be in RedBox kiosks ($1 rentals) since 
>> Universal is not dealing with RedBox. No Blu-Ray announced yet.
>>
>> http://www.scifi.com/caprica/
>> 
>
> Ah, that makes sense, because the torrent version
> has several "DVD Extras" with it. The best of them
> are the "deleted scenes." Unlike many such deleted
> scenes that should definitely have been deleted 
> and would have not only added nothing to the film
> but would have detracted from it, all of the ones
> included on this DVD would have made "Caprica" a 
> better film if they had been included. They def-
> initely "fill in the cracks" re some of the plot
> details and those to be examined in the future,
> about several of the major characters.
>
> It's good. You'll like it. I love the way that 
> they are able to deal with the issues surrounding
> religion and religious hatred and jealousy and
> fanaticism while incorporating it into an exciting
> plot that people not interested in those subjects 
> can still enjoy. It's fascinating stuff, and I look 
> forward to seeing it all play out in future episodes 
> once it makes it to the SciFi Channel.
>
> BTW, my brother points out that "Kings" has been
> moved to the "dead zone" of Saturday night instead
> of the showcase it occupied on Sunday nights. That
> does not bode well for a second season.
"Caprica" was supposed to play last December on Sci-Fi but didn't.  Now 
they plan to show it in 2010.  That's probably why a Blu-Ray release 
didn't accompany the DVD release.

Thanks for pointing out the program change on "Kings".  The show doesn't 
have enough "edge" to it to keep up the audience though.  It seems like 
it has been given a dose of Valium by the NBC execs which also happens 
over at CBS.   It always seems it is 75% of the way to where it should be.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/04/nbc-pulls-kings.html

I also watched the sequel (over 10 years later) to "Screamers" on DVD 
which could have been a lot better.  It would make a good  DVD to show 
in a film class to see how many errors the writers made.  It is too 
overstated and the dialog poor.  A lot more could have been done with a 
better budget or more time.  You keep wanting to tell the writers to 
listen to David Mamet's commentary on "Redbelt" about how you imply some 
thing rather than state them in your script.  Not to be a spoiler but I 
think they squeezed a two film deal out of this as there looks to be 
another sequel which was probably filmed at the same time leading to a 
more compressed shooting schedule.

Toss up between "Crank 2" and "State of Play" at the local digital 
cinema.  I enjoyed "Crank" and the sequel is rated R so will have more 
edge than PG-13 "State of Play" which is based on the 2003 BBC 
mini-series that I also liked (I think Mirren was in that too).

Watch out that Spain doesn't jump on the Swedish bandwagon regarding 
torrents.  Somebody needs to post lists of legal torrents and get as 
many people torrenting them to confuse the issue for the "authorities."

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm not informed of the the DLF program
> particulars, so perhaps much of my argument is moot,
> and I apologize for speaking without knowing the
> particulars.  
> 
> But, for clarity: regarding the mandated "quiet time"
> -- is that something that's already designated in
> schools?

It's being experimented with here and there; it isn't
system-wide by any means. It's definitely not something
Lynch or TM dreamed up. I don't believe it had been
associated with TM at all until Lynch saw it as a
possible framework for his program.

There was a bit of a hoo-hah at one point because some
saw a Quiet Time period as an excuse to get students 
to pray (which may well have been the motivation in some
quarters). The term itself has a religious origin,
primarily among Protestants, I believe, as a time set
aside for individuals to do prayer and Bible study (not
necessarily in schools), but it's been more or less
co-opted.

RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist
"monasteries")

Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations 
They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you
seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily
threatened by contradictory evidence. I don't suggest that you accept every
rumor that comes along, but you might find it liberating to shift your
source of security from faith and idealistic thinking to an openness to what
is. Your preachy, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, which is
blatantly obvious to everyone here, is just like that of the fundamentalist
Christians, and for the same essential reason: ego aggrandizement.
and even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" 
Nabby, I'm limited to 2nd hand accounts because: 
1.   I personally have never had sex with MMY, although I've talked with
a couple of very credible women who say they have.
2.   I was never one of MMY's personal secretaries, although I know many
of them, and about half of them, during their tenure, became aware of these
goings on.
I find every word in my post to be justified.
Then by golly it must be.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> You miss my point: the practice can't be done on or off campus until the 
> student is initiated into the practice.  The initiation ceremony is 
> unquestionably religious in nature and the fact that it can't be severed from 
> the practice (whether or not the student ever sees another puja in his or her 
> life) means that it steps over the line drawn, separating chuch and state.
> 
> This is analogous to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that mandates 
> that all evidence against a criminal defendant that is illegally obtained by 
> the state, and all evidence that flows from that initial illegallity (i.e., 
> police illegally search a house and discover evidence that leads to other 
> crime or crimes of the defendant), all of it must be suppressed and cannot be 
> used against the defendant.  (Easier said in theory than accomplished in 
> actual practice.)
> 
> If you can't teach TM without the puja, then you can't federally fund it in 
> the classroom.  

And who is talking about federally finding it in the Lynch program? (or state 
or county funding)

If, however, a group of students who had started TM on their own began their 
own club, there would be no issue about that as far as I could see.

Isn't that parallel to what he Lynch program is doing? The practice at school 
is voluntary. 


If was the DLF for consciousness-based education clubs -- would that be ok?

a group of students 
started TM on their own their own an outside of school
had a DLF sponsored voluntary club
and voluntarily sat with eyes closed for 15 minutes

 



> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > 
> > > TM is religion based, [not] just religion derived.  You
> > > can practice the meditation without the religion, but
> > > under the federal Constitution, the meditation
> > > instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony. I
> > > cannot imagine the TMO overcoming the legal challenges
> > > that will be made against teaching the meditation (which
> > > requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the
> > > puja) in public schools.
> > 
> > And if all the instruction (including puja and checking)
> > took place off school grounds?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Correct, mantras are not prayers; that was not my point.  And although they are 
semantically meaningless sounds, they have a rich history of very specific 
religious and ritual associations and meanings, not fundamentally different in 
how an adherent of either religion (Catholic or Hindu) would appreciate them.

So my point was not that mantras are prayers, even though I understand that 
both are religion based, and do not exist independently from their religions, 
except in a very careful, and thin, argument.  Again, anyone can say the 
Catholic rosary without the slightest belief in any of the religious 
underpinnings, and that is entirely analogous to the TMO's argument that the 
silent repetition of Hindu mantras after a Hindu puja is not religious.  But 
under a church/state analysis, it doesn't pass muster.

And I believe that many private citizens would and will object to its promotion 
in the schools, even under the DLF.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say
> > with the Catholic rosary, that "we're giving you all
> > the salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."
> > I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a
> > Heavenly Father to say those prayers.  They're just
> > words.  They're essentially just sounds, you don't
> > have to attribute any meaning to them.  And if you
> > don't know the english language, all the better,
> > because that way you won't even be distracted by the
> > meaning behind the prayers that the people who do
> > know english and do practice Catholicism say they
> > mean.
> > 
> > It's exactly the same.
> 
> Wow, Marek. Ingenious argument, but fundamentally
> sophistic.
> 
> TM mantras aren't prayers in *any* language; they're
> semantically meaningless sounds.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

But Marek, the agenda *wasn't* hidden. In my intro lecture,
the teacher was explicit that TM was a spiritual practice.
I can't remember for sure exactly when I first heard the
phrase "spiritually regenerate the world," but I'm pretty
sure it was during the three days of checking, most likely
the third day.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Deceptive in the sense that there was a hidden agenda.  
> 
> Maharishi's original and lasting intention was to spiritually regenerate the 
> world.  TM was the original and fundamental vehicle to accomplish that 
> intention.  With more exposure to the greater world outside India, and with 
> the fortuitous results of Keith Wallace's doctoral research, Maharishi 
> re-crafted the message, but the intention remained the same and, as Curtis so 
> accurately depicted, many or most of the TM teachers understood that they 
> were spreading a message and a practice that was greater and more important 
> than the initial message we told potential inititates and new meditators.
> 
> The first step (meditation) was necessary, but it was just the start.
> 
> Again, I don't feel that it was all wrong, or done with bad intentions, but 
> it wasn't very honest.  I was willing to be dishonest for what I believed was 
> a higher principle.  I feel differently about that position now.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a
> > > throne decorated with specific religious symbols.
> > > 
> > > One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me
> > > personally, was gently guiding an initiate from a
> > > purely material, scientific POV of the world, into the
> > > wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy
> > > underlying the meditation.  At least getting them
> > > comfortable with the discussion.
> > > 
> > > That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight),
> > > but it was more than a little deceptive
> > 
> > In what way was it deceptive?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Yes, I'm not informed of the the DLF program particulars, so perhaps much of my 
argument is moot, and I apologize for speaking without knowing the particulars. 
 

But, for clarity: regarding the mandated "quiet time" -- is that something 
that's already designated in schools?  Or is it only in those schools who 
decide to participate in the TM program?  Is it that all of a sudden there's a 
school-mandated quiet time that coincided with the introduction of DLF 
sponsored TM teaching?  If so, that would seem to be disingenuous, easily seen 
through by any reviewing court and likely to be disallowed.

IMO.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > You miss my point: the practice can't be done on or
> > off campus until the student is initiated into the
> > practice.  The initiation ceremony is unquestionably
> > religious in nature and the fact that it can't be
> > severed from the practice (whether or not the student
> > ever sees another puja in his or her life) means that
> > it steps over the line drawn, separating chuch and
> > state.
> 
> But that would mean, it seems to me (assuming all the
> instruction takes place off school grounds), that if
> a school had a mandated Quiet Time during which
> students could do some quiet activity or no activity,
> students would not be allowed to practice TM during
> that time, even if they had learned it completely on
> their own hook (although I'm not sure exactly how
> you'd stop them unless you required the students to
> keep their eyes open).
> 
> Even *prayer* is allowed under those circumstances,
> as I understand it, as long as it's the student's
> choice to pray.
> 
> 
> > If you can't teach TM without the puja, then you can't
> > federally fund it in the classroom.
> 
> It isn't being federally funded. Lynch is funding it.
> The only thing the school is doing is mandating the
> Quiet Time period in a classroom or other school
> location, during which students can do TM or another
> quiet activity, and providing teachers to monitor the
> period.
> 
> I have to think there's some major misunderstanding
> about what Lynch's program involves here.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say
> with the Catholic rosary, that "we're giving you all
> the salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."
> I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a
> Heavenly Father to say those prayers.  They're just
> words.  They're essentially just sounds, you don't
> have to attribute any meaning to them.  And if you
> don't know the english language, all the better,
> because that way you won't even be distracted by the
> meaning behind the prayers that the people who do
> know english and do practice Catholicism say they
> mean.
> 
> It's exactly the same.

Wow, Marek. Ingenious argument, but fundamentally
sophistic.

TM mantras aren't prayers in *any* language; they're
semantically meaningless sounds.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Deceptive in the sense that there was a hidden agenda.  

Maharishi's original and lasting intention was to spiritually regenerate the 
world.  TM was the original and fundamental vehicle to accomplish that 
intention.  With more exposure to the greater world outside India, and with the 
fortuitous results of Keith Wallace's doctoral research, Maharishi re-crafted 
the message, but the intention remained the same and, as Curtis so accurately 
depicted, many or most of the TM teachers understood that they were spreading a 
message and a practice that was greater and more important than the initial 
message we told potential inititates and new meditators.

The first step (meditation) was necessary, but it was just the start.

Again, I don't feel that it was all wrong, or done with bad intentions, but it 
wasn't very honest.  I was willing to be dishonest for what I believed was a 
higher principle.  I feel differently about that position now.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a
> > throne decorated with specific religious symbols.
> > 
> > One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me
> > personally, was gently guiding an initiate from a
> > purely material, scientific POV of the world, into the
> > wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy
> > underlying the meditation.  At least getting them
> > comfortable with the discussion.
> > 
> > That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight),
> > but it was more than a little deceptive
> 
> In what way was it deceptive?
>

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread Alex Stanley

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Turqy,
> > > 
> > > If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and 
> > > "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies 
> > > you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd 
> > > have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm 
> > > and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire.
> > > 
> > > But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, 
> > > and we'll see what that does.
> > 
> > No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point
> > (I did) and write you off as still just as insane
> > (and as mean about it) as you were then.
> > 
> > This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do 
> > with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't 
> > teach your own daughter how to tell the difference 
> > between when a man is just appreciating her
> > company and when he is hitting on her sexually.
> > I sss now that you failed so miserably at that
> > task because you don't know the difference 
> > yourself.
> 
> I give an 80% probability of a 100+ line response, and a 50%
> probability of a 200+ line response.
> 
> Or a 20% probability of a one line response. Containing the
> letters F and U.

Firetruck!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> You miss my point: the practice can't be done on or
> off campus until the student is initiated into the
> practice.  The initiation ceremony is unquestionably
> religious in nature and the fact that it can't be
> severed from the practice (whether or not the student
> ever sees another puja in his or her life) means that
> it steps over the line drawn, separating chuch and
> state.

But that would mean, it seems to me (assuming all the
instruction takes place off school grounds), that if
a school had a mandated Quiet Time during which
students could do some quiet activity or no activity,
students would not be allowed to practice TM during
that time, even if they had learned it completely on
their own hook (although I'm not sure exactly how
you'd stop them unless you required the students to
keep their eyes open).

Even *prayer* is allowed under those circumstances,
as I understand it, as long as it's the student's
choice to pray.

> If you can't teach TM without the puja, then you can't
> federally fund it in the classroom.

It isn't being federally funded. Lynch is funding it.
The only thing the school is doing is mandating the
Quiet Time period in a classroom or other school
location, during which students can do TM or another
quiet activity, and providing teachers to monitor the
period.

I have to think there's some major misunderstanding
about what Lynch's program involves here.

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread nablusoss1008

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

> 
> Edg, I was going to let this slide as just 
> another example of YOU lashing out, but t'would
> seem that you need a reminder of how you do so.
> 
> Nabby's a twit.

Thank you. If you were not already the President of Twitdom I'd invite you over 
for a glass of Champagne.  

We
(The Turq, Vaj and Curtis)

 all know that. There was no
> call to ask for him to be banned. THAT was over
> the top. 
> 
> Besides, what Lurk may be hinting at is that you
> are not exactly in a position to call anyone here
> on going over the top. Here's an example you might
> resonate with, one that *includes* slurs against
> other people.
> 
> Did you happen to read the link posted by Bob B.
> in the "A poet with hate mail" post, about poet
> Frederick Seidel? Here's the link again, if you
> did not:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12Seidel-t.html
> 
> In the article, the 73-year-old poet tells the
> story of getting a hate message on his answering
> machine from a reader who seemed not to like what
> someone his age said about younger women and his
> fondness for them. 
> 
> Now remember back to when I posted an innocent
> tale of meeting two young women in a bar here in
> Sitges and my delight at finding them both 1)
> English speakers, 2) charming, 3) intelligent,
> 4) knowledgeable about music, and 5) fun to be 
> with. *Literally* everyone on this forum -- 
> including my own long-time stalker -- saw it 
> as an innocent appreciation of a neat conver-
> sation and two neat women. Everyone except you.
> 
> You launched into a weeks-long harangue against
> me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women
> and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older
> man ways." You basically lost it and became a
> stalker yourself. In the process you heavily
> insulted not only me but the young women, neither
> of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in,
> one of whom who has become one of my best friends
> here in Sitges, and has *still* endured the least
> sexual or romantic interest from me. 
> 
> Basically, as I saw it then, because of your own
> guilt feelings about a family situation, the situ-
> ation of an older man *appreciating the company of 
> younger women* pushed your buttons almost as much 
> as Frederick Seidel's poems pushed his stalker's
> buttons. She reacted by basically threatening his 
> life. You contented yourself with calling me a 
> predator, and persisting in doing so to this day.
> 
> So the next time you feel like getting up on a 
> soapbox and declaring someone here persona non
> grata, please remember this and many other inci-
> dents in which you did far worse. 
> 
> You have a very selective memory when your 
> righteous anger button gets pushed, one that
> allows you to forget that you ain't exactly
> righteous. 
> 
> I'm not looking to reopen the "predator" scenario,
> just to remind you that of all the people here,
> you are the LEAST competent to blast anyone for
> lashing out in anger, and in unjustified, com-
> pletely invented and projected anger. 
> 
> 'Nuff said, I hope...

Amazing. I never thought I'd congratulate you, of all people, on a post here. 
But I do now.

You bothered to answer a post from Edg that is shining in some kind of 
bordeline glow, to remind him of his past ridicelous attack on someone who 
simply enjoyed the comany of young women.

I didn't bother to answer him simply because, as so often with Edg's posts I 
find his intense rants rather boring. 

And because he chose a pityful "cause", as he unfortunately often does, in 
accusing me of all sorts of rubbish regarding the wife of Rick. Again 
borderline behaviour comes to mind. 
Rather, he should try to develop his obvious writing-skills. I quite remember a 
post he did on "showelling snow" which was a joy to read.

Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations and 
even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" I find 
every word in my post to be justified.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say with the Catholic rosary, 
that "we're giving you all the salutary effects but none of the religious 
stuff."  I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a Heavenly Father to say 
those prayers.  They're just words.  They're essentially just sounds, you don't 
have to attribute any meaning to them.  And if you don't know the english 
language, all the better, because that way you won't even be distracted by the 
meaning behind the prayers that the people who do know english and do practice 
Catholicism say they mean.

It's exactly the same.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > IMO, I would expect that someone saying the rosary 
> > (essentially a collection of "hail marys" and "our
> > fathers") would be getting many of the same (if not
> > all) of the salutory effects of TM.
> 
> Could be, but that's irrelevant to my point, which 
> was that with the rosary, you couldn't say, as you can
> with TM, "We're giving you the part that has all the
> salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."
> 
> It's not parallel, in other words.
> 
> 
>   I'm not debating the merits of the respective practices, but the analysis 
> under the federal Constitution, if such a practice would be lawful under the 
> separation of church and state.
> > 
> > Similar to teaching TM in the public schools, it would not be allowed.
> > 
> > I like the separation doctrine, and agree with it.  That principle is more 
> > important to me than teaching this form of meditation to public school 
> > students.
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable,
> > > > scientifically veriafiable effects on student's
> > > > attitudes and grades, would that justify teaching
> > > > it or having the students practice it at school?  
> > > 
> > > With the rosary, would you be able to say, "We're
> > > just giving you the part that has scientifically
> > > verifiable effects and none of the religious stuff"?
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a
> throne decorated with specific religious symbols.
> 
> One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me
> personally, was gently guiding an initiate from a
> purely material, scientific POV of the world, into the
> wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy
> underlying the meditation.  At least getting them
> comfortable with the discussion.
> 
> That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight),
> but it was more than a little deceptive

In what way was it deceptive?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

You miss my point: the practice can't be done on or off campus until the 
student is initiated into the practice.  The initiation ceremony is 
unquestionably religious in nature and the fact that it can't be severed from 
the practice (whether or not the student ever sees another puja in his or her 
life) means that it steps over the line drawn, separating chuch and state.

This is analogous to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that mandates 
that all evidence against a criminal defendant that is illegally obtained by 
the state, and all evidence that flows from that initial illegallity (i.e., 
police illegally search a house and discover evidence that leads to other crime 
or crimes of the defendant), all of it must be suppressed and cannot be used 
against the defendant.  (Easier said in theory than accomplished in actual 
practice.)

If you can't teach TM without the puja, then you can't federally fund it in the 
classroom.  If, however, a group of students who had started TM on their own 
began their own club, there would be no issue about that as far as I could see.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> 
> > TM is religion based, [not] just religion derived.  You
> > can practice the meditation without the religion, but
> > under the federal Constitution, the meditation
> > instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony. I
> > cannot imagine the TMO overcoming the legal challenges
> > that will be made against teaching the meditation (which
> > requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the
> > puja) in public schools.
> 
> And if all the instruction (including puja and checking)
> took place off school grounds?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

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

> TM is religion based, [not] just religion derived.  You
> can practice the meditation without the religion, but
> under the federal Constitution, the meditation
> instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony. I
> cannot imagine the TMO overcoming the legal challenges
> that will be made against teaching the meditation (which
> requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the
> puja) in public schools.

And if all the instruction (including puja and checking)
took place off school grounds?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> People seem to forget to mention that they're not just
> kneeling, they're kneeling in front of someone,

When I was initiated, the place I was invited to
kneel was off to the side, not in front of the table.

 who in English translation is  
> "the Guru God" ("Guru Dev"). Hello?

 That's one way of translating it.

Another is "Divine Teacher." Big whoop.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> IMO, I would expect that someone saying the rosary 
> (essentially a collection of "hail marys" and "our
> fathers") would be getting many of the same (if not
> all) of the salutory effects of TM.

Could be, but that's irrelevant to my point, which 
was that with the rosary, you couldn't say, as you can
with TM, "We're giving you the part that has all the
salutary effects but none of the religious stuff."

It's not parallel, in other words.


  I'm not debating the merits of the respective practices, but the analysis 
under the federal Constitution, if such a practice would be lawful under the 
separation of church and state.
> 
> Similar to teaching TM in the public schools, it would not be allowed.
> 
> I like the separation doctrine, and agree with it.  That principle is more 
> important to me than teaching this form of meditation to public school 
> students.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > 
> > > If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable,
> > > scientifically veriafiable effects on student's
> > > attitudes and grades, would that justify teaching
> > > it or having the students practice it at school?  
> > 
> > With the rosary, would you be able to say, "We're
> > just giving you the part that has scientifically
> > verifiable effects and none of the religious stuff"?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Universities have all sorts of openly religious groups from all sorts of 
religions using university facilities to openly and notoriously practice their 
religions and espouse their beliefs.  Using federal money to do so (other than 
facility use alone) is not allowed.  Teaching the tenets of any religions under 
a religious studies curriculum is allowed.  

High schools are different because students in high school are minors, high 
school attendance is mandatory, and the state has a greater fiduciary 
responsibility to keep everything neutral for the greater percentage of the 
total population who are escorted through that doorway than the lower 
percentage who voluntarily (and as legal adults) elect to attend 
college/university.

I think that the David Lynch Foundation is more or less good intentioned, but 
misguided (under the doctrine of separation of church and state) in their plan 
to teach it in the high schools.  

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > GrateSwan, I think you're slicing the baloney too thin,
> 
> There are interesting if not important distinctions to be explored and 
> understood, IMO. 
> 
> Let me try to recast them, the distinction between:
> 
> 1) learning and practicing. 
> 
> 2) religion-based and the practice of religion.
> 
> With just these two distinctions we have a 2 x 2 table with the following 
> combinations:
> 
> 1) learning a religion
> 2) learning something religious-based
> 3) practicing a religion
> 4) practicing something religious-based
> 
> Add to this to voluntary vs required 
> 
> Required 
> 1) learning a religion
> 2) learning something religious-based
> 3) practicing a religion
> 4) practicing something religious-based
> 
> Voluntarily
> 5) learning a religion
> 6) learning something religious-based
> 7) practicing a religion
> 8) practicing something religious-based
> 
> The Lynch program as I understand it, is only about option 8. Though much of 
> the discussion seems to be blurring it all, with many of the other non-Lynch 
> elements being bantered about as objections to his program.
> 
> Lets take Lynch and TM out of it. Lets say its #8 for a buddhist-based 
> awareness meditation. 
> 
> A) Should that be prohibited from publicly high schools?  
> 
> B) Should that be prohibited from publicly universities?  
> 
> On the latter, universities, should any courses on hindism or buddhist 
> courses be banned? 
> 
> What if the course involves a field trip to see some temples. Or a yagya?
> 
> Personally, I don't see # 8 in HS for buddist awareness meditation as a 
> religions practice that should be banned from public HSs. An if it is, then I 
> would expect a whole scale change and reduction of public university courses 
> that have religious content. And certainly those that observe religions 
> practices.
> 
> In my view, if you are objecting to #8 at public universities you are cutting 
> the first amendment way too thin. HS? Still pretty thing -- so thin its 
> transparent -- hold it up to a window and you can see light.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
> of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  though I appreciate the intent to be rigorously objective.  But it's not a 
> Zeno's paradox thing; it's so clearly religious and in every aspect, *except* 
> for the TMOs labored explanation/interpretation that has to be immediately 
> inserted, which essentially boils down to "it just *looks* religious, but 
> it's really not (it's a science actually)." 
> > 
> > That argument flys in the face of a "totality of the circumstances" 
> > analysis.  If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable, 
> > scientifically veriafiable effects on student's attitudes and grades, would 
> > that justify teaching it or having the students practice it at school?  
> > 
> > No, not under the federal Constitution.
> > 
> > This is exactly the same thing.
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- 
> > > > thanks for that.
> > > > 
> > > > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a 
> > > > posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would 
> > > > assume that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and 
> > > > on cue from the instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that 
> > > > the whole thing is religion-based is absurd.
> > > 
> > > I have a questioning (same say questionable) mind. I am not defending any 
> > > position, rather just questioning the logic and implications of your

[FairfieldLife] Couchsurfing ....

From: joerg dao [mailto:joerg...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 6:34 AM
To: r...@searchsummit.com
Subject: couchsurfing 

Hi Rick,

there is a new idea for TM-meditators.
Its the internet-page: couchsurfing.com

I have an extra idea in this:
TM-people invite each other,
especially to give lectures.

Could be fun.

http://home.arcor.de/dikk/tm-couch/tm-couch1.html

cheers

joerg.

www.futuring.de

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

The picture of Guru Dev has a halo, too, sitting on a throne decorated with 
specific religious symbols.

One of the great pleasures of teaching TM, for me personally, was gently 
guiding an initiate from a purely material, scientific POV of the world, into 
the wonderfully rich metaphysical structure and philosophy underlying the 
meditation.  At least getting them comfortable with the discussion.

That wasn't necessarily a bad thing (even in hindsight), but it was more than a 
little deceptive, and it was an attitude shared by most, if not all TM teachers 
during my tenure in the movement.  The last time I initiated someone, I was 
very upfront with my actual attitudes and feelings.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:
> 
> > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard --  
> > thanks for that.
> >
> > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just  
> > a posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would  
> > assume that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony  
> > (and on cue from the instructor), and not draw the immediate  
> > conclusion that the whole thing is religion-based is absurd.
> 
> People seem to forget to mention that they're not just kneeling,  
> they're kneeling in front of someone, who in English translation is  
> "the Guru God" ("Guru Dev"). Hello?
> 
> Great one R. and thanks to Curtis for SO nailing the becoming a TM Boy  
> Scout experience.
> 
> "I wanted GC, not lower blood lactate!" OMG, my spleen!
>

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Turqy,
> > 
> > If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and 
> > "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies 
> > you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd 
> > have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm 
> > and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire.
> > 
> > But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, 
> > and we'll see what that does.
> 
> No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point
> (I did) and write you off as still just as insane
> (and as mean about it) as you were then.
> 
> This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do 
> with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't 
> teach your own daughter how to tell the difference 
> between when a man is just appreciating her
> company and when he is hitting on her sexually.
> I sss now that you failed so miserably at that
> task because you don't know the difference 
> yourself.

I give an 80% probability of a 100+ line response, and a 50% probability of a 
200+ line response.

Or a 20% probability of a one line response. Containing the letters F and U.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> GrateSwan, I think you're slicing the baloney too thin,

There are interesting if not important distinctions to be explored and 
understood, IMO. 

Let me try to recast them, the distinction between:

1) learning and practicing. 

2) religion-based and the practice of religion.

With just these two distinctions we have a 2 x 2 table with the following 
combinations:

1) learning a religion
2) learning something religious-based
3) practicing a religion
4) practicing something religious-based

Add to this to voluntary vs required 

Required 
1) learning a religion
2) learning something religious-based
3) practicing a religion
4) practicing something religious-based

Voluntarily
5) learning a religion
6) learning something religious-based
7) practicing a religion
8) practicing something religious-based

The Lynch program as I understand it, is only about option 8. Though much of 
the discussion seems to be blurring it all, with many of the other non-Lynch 
elements being bantered about as objections to his program.

Lets take Lynch and TM out of it. Lets say its #8 for a buddhist-based 
awareness meditation. 

A) Should that be prohibited from publicly high schools?  

B) Should that be prohibited from publicly universities?  

On the latter, universities, should any courses on hindism or buddhist courses 
be banned? 

What if the course involves a field trip to see some temples. Or a yagya?

Personally, I don't see # 8 in HS for buddist awareness meditation as a 
religions practice that should be banned from public HSs. An if it is, then I 
would expect a whole scale change and reduction of public university courses 
that have religious content. And certainly those that observe religions 
practices.

In my view, if you are objecting to #8 at public universities you are cutting 
the first amendment way too thin. HS? Still pretty thing -- so thin its 
transparent -- hold it up to a window and you can see light.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
the Government for a redress of grievances."








 though I appreciate the intent to be rigorously objective.  But it's not a 
Zeno's paradox thing; it's so clearly religious and in every aspect, *except* 
for the TMOs labored explanation/interpretation that has to be immediately 
inserted, which essentially boils down to "it just *looks* religious, but it's 
really not (it's a science actually)." 
> 
> That argument flys in the face of a "totality of the circumstances" analysis. 
>  If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable, scientifically 
> veriafiable effects on student's attitudes and grades, would that justify 
> teaching it or having the students practice it at school?  
> 
> No, not under the federal Constitution.
> 
> This is exactly the same thing.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- 
> > > thanks for that.
> > > 
> > > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a 
> > > posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would assume 
> > > that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue 
> > > from the instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the 
> > > whole thing is religion-based is absurd.
> > 
> > I have a questioning (same say questionable) mind. I am not defending any 
> > position, rather just questioning the logic and implications of your 
> > statement.  
> > 
> > What is the import of "religiously based"? Most things we come across, do, 
> > are involved in have a religious basis. Imagine the founding fathers saying 
> > a prayer before signing the DoI or Constitution? Does that make all our 
> > laws religious based? Ergo, are you practicing a religion when you practice 
> > law? 
> > 
> > US currency says "in God We Trust". One could say that US money is 
> > religion-based. When I buy stuff, is that a religious practice (granted 
> > some things I buy are divine and make me feel like I am in heaven, but I 
> > digress). 
> > 
> > Wine .. well you heard my rap on that. 
> > 
> > Kneeling -- are hookers practicing religion?
> > 
> > If research showed that kneeling created a mind-body response that makes 
> > one more able to learn some things, would kneeling in TM instruction be ok 
> > then? 
> > 
> > If TM is religiously based, should that preclude the  practice of it (not 
> > explicitly teaching of it ) on a voluntary basis in schools a religion? If 
> > so, is that only  for state-funded high schools and not state-funded 
> > universities? 
> > 
> > Are non-catholic participants students of catholic schools practicing

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

[Correction: sentence should read: "TM is religion based, *not* just religion 
derived."]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Judy, you accurately describe the attitude that I, as an intiator, tried to 
> project to initiates who did not kneel when cued to do so.  You also 
> accurately characterize your initiation setting as being religious (or 
> religiously ambiguous),  "If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, 
> but I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's what it was."  
> 
> TM is religion based, just religion derived.  You can practice the meditation 
> without the religion, but under the federal Constitution, the meditation 
> instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony.  I cannot imagine the TMO 
> overcoming the legal challenges that will be made against teaching the 
> meditation (which requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the 
> puja) in public schools.
> 
> It's not even a close call IMO.
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing
> > > so hard -- thanks for that.
> > > 
> > > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea
> > > that it's just a posture, merely equivalent with any other,
> > > and that a person would assume that pose immediately
> > > following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from the 
> > > instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the
> > > whole thing is religion-based is absurd.
> > 
> > The point, of course, is that the person kneeling is
> > the one who imputes meaning to it. There's nothing
> > *inherently* religious about kneeling (e.g., one kneels
> > in the garden to plant bulbs and pull weeds).
> > 
> > Of course specific contexts narrow the possible meanings
> > for the individual who kneels. But there's still a range.
> > When I was initiated, I assumed the gesture to kneel had
> > to do with showing respect for my teacher, to whom the
> > ceremony was pretty obviously important. But I didn't see
> > it as any different from the way Christians will don a
> > yarmulke when they attend a Jewish ceremony of ome kind,
> > or the way Obama made a very low bow to the Saudi king
> > recently--sort of a "When in Rome..." attitude.
> > 
> > It would never have occurred to me in a million years
> > that I would have been committing myself to worship
> > Guru Dev or the teachers of the "Holy Tradition" if I
> > had knelt. That wouldn't have been what *I* meant by it.
> > If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, but
> > I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's
> > what it was.
> > 
> > As it happens, I respectfully declined to kneel just on
> > general principles, and that appeared to be fine with
> > the teacher. If he'd *insisted* that I kneel, on the
> > other hand, I probably would have walked out. That it
> > was voluntary confirmed to me that he respected my
> > autonomy amd wasn't trying to convert me to anything.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

IMO, I would expect that someone saying the rosary (essentially a collection of 
"hail marys" and "our fathers") would be getting many of the same (if not all) 
of the salutory effects of TM.  I'm not debating the merits of the respective 
practices, but the analysis under the federal Constitution, if such a practice 
would be lawful under the separation of church and state.

Similar to teaching TM in the public schools, it would not be allowed.

I like the separation doctrine, and agree with it.  That principle is more 
important to me than teaching this form of meditation to public school students.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> 
> > If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable,
> > scientifically veriafiable effects on student's
> > attitudes and grades, would that justify teaching
> > it or having the students practice it at school?  
> 
> With the rosary, would you be able to say, "We're
> just giving you the part that has scientifically
> verifiable effects and none of the religious stuff"?
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread Vaj

On Apr 18, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:

> Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard --  
> thanks for that.
>
> Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just  
> a posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would  
> assume that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony  
> (and on cue from the instructor), and not draw the immediate  
> conclusion that the whole thing is religion-based is absurd.

People seem to forget to mention that they're not just kneeling,  
they're kneeling in front of someone, who in English translation is  
"the Guru God" ("Guru Dev"). Hello?

Great one R. and thanks to Curtis for SO nailing the becoming a TM Boy  
Scout experience.

"I wanted GC, not lower blood lactate!" OMG, my spleen!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Judy, you accurately describe the attitude that I, as an intiator, tried to 
project to initiates who did not kneel when cued to do so.  You also accurately 
characterize your initiation setting as being religious (or religiously 
ambiguous),  "If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, but I had no 
intention of joining his religion, if that's what it was."  

TM is religion based, just religion derived.  You can practice the meditation 
without the religion, but under the federal Constitution, the meditation 
instruction is unquestionably a religious ceremony.  I cannot imagine the TMO 
overcoming the legal challenges that will be made against teaching the 
meditation (which requires the specific form of instruction utilizing the puja) 
in public schools.

It's not even a close call IMO.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing
> > so hard -- thanks for that.
> > 
> > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea
> > that it's just a posture, merely equivalent with any other,
> > and that a person would assume that pose immediately
> > following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from the 
> > instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the
> > whole thing is religion-based is absurd.
> 
> The point, of course, is that the person kneeling is
> the one who imputes meaning to it. There's nothing
> *inherently* religious about kneeling (e.g., one kneels
> in the garden to plant bulbs and pull weeds).
> 
> Of course specific contexts narrow the possible meanings
> for the individual who kneels. But there's still a range.
> When I was initiated, I assumed the gesture to kneel had
> to do with showing respect for my teacher, to whom the
> ceremony was pretty obviously important. But I didn't see
> it as any different from the way Christians will don a
> yarmulke when they attend a Jewish ceremony of ome kind,
> or the way Obama made a very low bow to the Saudi king
> recently--sort of a "When in Rome..." attitude.
> 
> It would never have occurred to me in a million years
> that I would have been committing myself to worship
> Guru Dev or the teachers of the "Holy Tradition" if I
> had knelt. That wouldn't have been what *I* meant by it.
> If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, but
> I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's
> what it was.
> 
> As it happens, I respectfully declined to kneel just on
> general principles, and that appeared to be fine with
> the teacher. If he'd *insisted* that I kneel, on the
> other hand, I probably would have walked out. That it
> was voluntary confirmed to me that he respected my
> autonomy amd wasn't trying to convert me to anything.
>

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Turqy,
> 
> If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and 
> "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies 
> you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd 
> have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm 
> and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire.
> 
> But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, 
> and we'll see what that does.

No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point
(I did) and write you off as still just as insane
(and as mean about it) as you were then.

This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do 
with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't 
teach your own daughter how to tell the difference 
between when a man is just appreciating her
company and when he is hitting on her sexually.
I sss now that you failed so miserably at that
task because you don't know the difference 
yourself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

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

> If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable,
> scientifically veriafiable effects on student's
> attitudes and grades, would that justify teaching
> it or having the students practice it at school?  

With the rosary, would you be able to say, "We're
just giving you the part that has scientifically
verifiable effects and none of the religious stuff"?

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

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

> I know the allure of having a session of erudite repartee
> -- I get it -- I see your Utopian vision of what cafe-
> society could be -- as an ideal.  
> 
> But your phrase "I'd hit it" sullies any such idealism.
> If you, with all the wisdom life's given you by now,
> cannot see the gulf that that attitude creates, then I
> cannot educate you about it.

He didn't say "I'd hit it." Here's what he said:

"And yeah, she is 'way cute, and I would be the
luckiest guy on earth if I were fortunate enough
to be hittin' that. But that really wasn't on my
mind."

What part of "That really wasn't on my mind" are
you not grasping, Edg?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

GrateSwan, I think you're slicing the baloney too thin, though I appreciate the 
intent to be rigorously objective.  But it's not a Zeno's paradox thing; it's 
so clearly religious and in every aspect, *except* for the TMOs labored 
explanation/interpretation that has to be immediately inserted, which 
essentially boils down to "it just *looks* religious, but it's really not (it's 
a science actually)." 

That argument flys in the face of a "totality of the circumstances" analysis.  
If the saying of the Catholic rosary had provable, scientifically veriafiable 
effects on student's attitudes and grades, would that justify teaching it or 
having the students practice it at school?  

No, not under the federal Constitution.

This is exactly the same thing.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
> >
> > Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- thanks 
> > for that.
> > 
> > Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a 
> > posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would assume 
> > that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue 
> > from the instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the whole 
> > thing is religion-based is absurd.
> 
> I have a questioning (same say questionable) mind. I am not defending any 
> position, rather just questioning the logic and implications of your 
> statement.  
> 
> What is the import of "religiously based"? Most things we come across, do, 
> are involved in have a religious basis. Imagine the founding fathers saying a 
> prayer before signing the DoI or Constitution? Does that make all our laws 
> religious based? Ergo, are you practicing a religion when you practice law? 
> 
> US currency says "in God We Trust". One could say that US money is 
> religion-based. When I buy stuff, is that a religious practice (granted some 
> things I buy are divine and make me feel like I am in heaven, but I digress). 
> 
> Wine .. well you heard my rap on that. 
> 
> Kneeling -- are hookers practicing religion?
> 
> If research showed that kneeling created a mind-body response that makes one 
> more able to learn some things, would kneeling in TM instruction be ok then? 
> 
> If TM is religiously based, should that preclude the  practice of it (not 
> explicitly teaching of it ) on a voluntary basis in schools a religion? If 
> so, is that only  for state-funded high schools and not state-funded 
> universities? 
> 
> Are non-catholic participants students of catholic schools practicing 
> catholicism? Do many of such students converto to catholicism?
> 
> I am not arguing your point, and not defending TM. But these are the types of 
> questions I would ponder if I were an appelate judge deciding the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > But the gestalt of your phrasing was just great, thanks again.
> > 
> > Marek
> > 
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > This page contains an embedded video of Maharishi
> > > > > leading a group performance of the TM puja, sur-
> > > > > rounded by the Rajas in full costume.
> > > > 
> > > > > Whatever your stance about the "TM is/isn't a
> > > > > religion" issue, ask yourself, "If the TMO was
> > > > > proud enough of this occasion to broadcast it on
> > > > > its 'Maharishi Channel,' why don't they place this
> > > > > or similar videos on the tm.org website, so that
> > > > > all of the million kids they hope to teach TM to
> > > > > can see a preview of the ceremony they will soon
> > > > > be participating in?"
> > > > 
> > > > Possibly because they know what people like you
> > > > would try to make of it?
> > > 
> > > People like anybody. How many do you reckon would go 
> > > ahead with learning, sorry "initiation", if they saw 
> > > this vid first.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Ponder recent claims that "kneeling is kneeling"
> > > > > and that it's not really a "bowing down" to what
> > > > > these practitioners of the TM puja do at 09:35 into
> > > > > the video. The person who created the puja and in
> > > > > this video defines it as a ceremony "TO Guru Dev,"
> > > > > and the costumed leaders of the TM movement that
> > > > > surround him seem to have a slightly different
> > > > > interpretation of what 'namah' means and how to
> > > > > demonstrate it than the person who said "kneeling
> > > > > is kneeling." Looks a lot like "bowing down" to me.
> > > > 
> > > > But that's exactly the point. Kneeling is kneeling;
> > > > it depends on the person doing the kneeling what it
> > > > means to that person.
> > > 
> > > This sounds really desperate. Put it in it's obvious 
> > > context, what else could kneeling before a holy man mean?
> > > My shoe la

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread Duveyoung

Turqy,

If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and "be truthful" about 
your bar-agendas and the strategies you use when you interact with "much 
younger women," I'd have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm 
and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire.

But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, and we'll see what 
that does.

I have many projections founded upon delusions, and I have trotted them out 
here, and I've been corrected many  a time; I bow to my teachers -- you, for 
instance have opened my eyes  about the nuances of a lot of issues, but I have 
yet to think you've made a case that your bar-ethics would pass muster with 
many here.  

I mean, would you ever post a video of you having a conversation with women 
about whom you'd freely admit "I'd  hit that?"  Would you let us see your old 
man ways and give us the snickers when we saw that the girls got it that you 
were targeting the inside of their pants instead of, say, the nurturing of 
their souls? I don't think you'd post that video. 

Or, hey, if you WERE pulling off being worldly and suave, and the girls 
actually started buying into it, would you show us THAT video of them seemingly 
thinking they might "get lucky and have a roll in the hay with an expat, 
brainy, well dressed, master of French and Spanish, an author, an exponent of 
the good, sexually liberated life?"  No, you wouldn't post that video either, 
because the greater the disparity in your ages, the more we'd see the girls 
being hopelessly naive or damaged goods in some way if they thought so little 
of themselves that they'd have a sexual experience with you so haphazardly and 
be so clueless about the power of sexual bonding and clueless that they'd have 
"you" in their past to one day have to explain to themselves. If they ever were 
lucky enough to gain the love  of a man who wouldn't be caught dead in a bar 
hitting on or wanting to hit on much younger women, with what regret would they 
think of a tryst with you then?

Give us your write-up of a typical session of "meet a much younger sexy girl 
and put the moves on her."  You're certain to not attempt such a writing 
project here, because you know that even with your great rationalization 
skills, you'd be a predator in the eyes of most here if you actually tried to 
flesh out your "everyone's an adult and a free thinker here" concept.  The 
younger the girl, the more ludicrous the scenario would become.

Not that magic couldn't happen, not that a May-December pairing couldn't work, 
but that the rarity of such an event precludes anyone easily thinking, "Hey, 
I'll just keep hitting on the young ones until I find one willing to do me, and 
this will validate that the age difference isn't a concern and mitigate any 
suggestions that I'm marauding another's  life when I know with certainty that 
I'll all-too-soon be at the end of my sexuality while that person still has 
decades of mojo left, and that virtually every aspect of life will be impacted 
relentlessly by the age difference in ways that I can see but she cannot yet 
see."

I get it.  I can grok the delight of peering into the minds of modern day 
youth, I can be happy to observe first hand that someone is discovering their 
powers as a sexually radiant person who has raw shakti to spend and likes 
wiggling her ass to see the droolers drool, I can get off being a mentor of 
some sort by showing all the tee shirts life-experience has gained for me, I 
can get off buying a drink for those who cannot as easily afford to do so, I 
know the allure of having a session of erudite repartee -- I get it -- I see 
your Utopian vision of what cafe-society could be -- as an ideal.  

But your phrase "I'd hit it" sullies any such idealism.  If you, with all the 
wisdom life's given you by now, cannot see the gulf that that attitude creates, 
then I cannot educate you about it.

I know not "today's woman's" ability to spot a clown, or failing that, be 
unaffected by a casual one-nighter with one. I don't know how easily they can 
be manipulated by the dangling of money.  I don't know how rare "a  decent man" 
is these days. I  don't know why a woman would risk her time with  anyone who 
wasn't in her age bracket and obviously was presenting inherent 
incompatibilities that only the wisest of couples  could hope to successfully 
address.

But I do know women.  Yes, I  do. They want depth, commitment, intimacy,  
honesty, clarity about their partners and all the decisions they've made 
"so-far."  They want family, they want Hallmark Card memories, they want snap 
shots to show to all their friends.  To the extent that you can "get around" 
these innate qualities of women, it is a tell about the woman's lack of clarity 
about her own best interests, and, your willingness to exploit it.

You've written dialog here many times. Give us a script. Let us read the play: 
"Turq gets laid by the co-ed."  Try to make that

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing
> so hard -- thanks for that.
> 
> Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea
> that it's just a posture, merely equivalent with any other,
> and that a person would assume that pose immediately
> following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from the 
> instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the
> whole thing is religion-based is absurd.

The point, of course, is that the person kneeling is
the one who imputes meaning to it. There's nothing
*inherently* religious about kneeling (e.g., one kneels
in the garden to plant bulbs and pull weeds).

Of course specific contexts narrow the possible meanings
for the individual who kneels. But there's still a range.
When I was initiated, I assumed the gesture to kneel had
to do with showing respect for my teacher, to whom the
ceremony was pretty obviously important. But I didn't see
it as any different from the way Christians will don a
yarmulke when they attend a Jewish ceremony of ome kind,
or the way Obama made a very low bow to the Saudi king
recently--sort of a "When in Rome..." attitude.

It would never have occurred to me in a million years
that I would have been committing myself to worship
Guru Dev or the teachers of the "Holy Tradition" if I
had knelt. That wouldn't have been what *I* meant by it.
If the teacher was religious, that was OK with me, but
I had no intention of joining his religion, if that's
what it was.

As it happens, I respectfully declined to kneel just on
general principles, and that appeared to be fine with
the teacher. If he'd *insisted* that I kneel, on the
other hand, I probably would have walked out. That it
was voluntary confirmed to me that he respected my
autonomy amd wasn't trying to convert me to anything.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

This might be the best summary rap about the movement.  And you accurately 
described the arc of my own start in the TMO, too, uncanny.  That's almost 
exactly the way I came into, and felt about, the movement.

That is, of course, the one big reason why FFL is valuable -- not a lot of folk 
have this type of history.  Excellent rap, thanks.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> 
> > I'd say we do a poll of how many would've learnt TM
> > if they knew it was going to be like this but I think
> > some of us might have lost thier objectivity.
> >
> 
> I was only 16 whe I went to my intro, and at the time very religiously 
> motivated.  I had been doing yoga for about 6 months (my friend and I did 
> assanas in the waiting room before being initiated ,much to the chagrin of 
> our teacher who sent someone out to tell us to cool it! I was kind of shocked 
> when they taught us assanas on my first residence course because the teacher 
> made it seem like thery weren't necessary with TM.  He had been worried that 
> I was doing unauthorized assanas, not purified by Maharishi's approval.)
> 
> Having read the Meditations of Maharishi, the reprint of 4 SRM pamphlets 
> before the intro, I had some pointed questions about God realization which 
> were quickly stifled during the intro and again during the private interview 
> after the prep. They gave me just enough wink wink nudge nudge that ALL my 
> desires would be fulfilled with TM that I went ahead.  But like most teens 
> dealing with adults (they were only in their mid 20's) I sensed that pushing 
> them further would not be cool.  It felt a little weird and it took me a 
> while to get used to the duplicity game of TM language. After the advanced 
> lecture which dealt with God realization openly, I questioned them about 
> their dodginess at the intro and got the whole "wise shouldn't delude the 
> ignorant" angle.  As a snarky teen I ate that shit up!  Yeah, that's the 
> ticket, I'M the wise and we just feed the scientific charts to the ignorant.  
> I started doing intro lectures with the teacher that first year and learned 
> the rules of talking to the "public" and how little we could trust their 
> ignorant asses with the deeper perspective.  So I was down with the religious 
> angle from the start and would have more happily started without the SIMS 
> shuffle routine.  I was hardcore SRM baby!
> 
> I enjoyed being an insider but I sensed the duplicity from the start and the 
> mixed message almost kept me from starting TM. I wanted GC, not lower blood 
> lactate!  But the calming reassurance of the charts did reinforce that it was 
> a "real experience. On another level I did take the charts seriously, not 
> knowing my total inability to interpret their actual meaning or scientific 
> merit.Or the teachers for that matter, who were not college grads.  It had a 
> "truthiness" vibe that worked on me.
> 
> Taking and teaching SCI the next year developed the double line shtick as an 
> instinct.  I was an insider now, a KNOWER of reality.  Oh yeah!  MIU TTC, 
> more of the same message about the levels of knowledge and how to dole it out 
> from my lEVEL.  MY LEVEL!  It wasn't that I thought I was so great because 
> there were so many above my LEVEL that kept my ego in check, but it did 
> impress on me that the public was on a lower level.  It was US against THEM, 
> and they couldn't be trusted to follow what was best for them.   We held the 
> thin golden line between the public and God realization.
> 
> I'm glad everyone has more access to all the movement's teaching and 
> perspective with the Internet.  I believe that the movement's best PR move 
> would be to embrace their cultural identity as Hindu-lite and give up the 
> smirky "we are just like you", impression.  Belief-wise movement people 
> aren't just like me.  They hold a set of beliefs and assumptions that the 
> general public either doesn't know about, doesn't care about, doesn't agree 
> with, or has their own version of from their own spirituality. 
> 
> I heard one single refrain from all the reporters I talked to when I first 
> got out of TM who had contact with movement reps.  They all said that they 
> knew something was up, something was being hidden and dodged in the answers, 
> but they just couldn't put their finger on what it was.  The movement 
> presents itself to the public as if it has something to hide, something it 
> can't trust the public to know, and that duplicity with its implied 
> condescension,  hurts the movement and the kind of public who might dig TM.  
> Nobody likes a slippery Sam. 
> 
> But the problem is that the movement has run the double line teaching so long 
> it has become internalized.  Many discussions here take that form.  Once you 
> are on the PR language track, it has its own logic and vocabulary.  And the 
> movement is a master at keeping it sep

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  wrote:
>
> Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- thanks 
> for that.
> 
> Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a 
> posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would assume 
> that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from 
> the instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the whole thing 
> is religion-based is absurd.

I have a questioning (same say questionable) mind. I am not defending any 
position, rather just questioning the logic and implications of your statement. 
 

What is the import of "religiously based"? Most things we come across, do, are 
involved in have a religious basis. Imagine the founding fathers saying a 
prayer before signing the DoI or Constitution? Does that make all our laws 
religious based? Ergo, are you practicing a religion when you practice law? 

US currency says "in God We Trust". One could say that US money is 
religion-based. When I buy stuff, is that a religious practice (granted some 
things I buy are divine and make me feel like I am in heaven, but I digress). 

Wine .. well you heard my rap on that. 

Kneeling -- are hookers practicing religion?

If research showed that kneeling created a mind-body response that makes one 
more able to learn some things, would kneeling in TM instruction be ok then? 

If TM is religiously based, should that preclude the  practice of it (not 
explicitly teaching of it ) on a voluntary basis in schools a religion? If so, 
is that only  for state-funded high schools and not state-funded universities? 

Are non-catholic participants students of catholic schools practicing 
catholicism? Do many of such students converto to catholicism?

I am not arguing your point, and not defending TM. But these are the types of 
questions I would ponder if I were an appelate judge deciding the matter.








> 
> But the gestalt of your phrasing was just great, thanks again.
> 
> Marek
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > This page contains an embedded video of Maharishi
> > > > leading a group performance of the TM puja, sur-
> > > > rounded by the Rajas in full costume.
> > > 
> > > > Whatever your stance about the "TM is/isn't a
> > > > religion" issue, ask yourself, "If the TMO was
> > > > proud enough of this occasion to broadcast it on
> > > > its 'Maharishi Channel,' why don't they place this
> > > > or similar videos on the tm.org website, so that
> > > > all of the million kids they hope to teach TM to
> > > > can see a preview of the ceremony they will soon
> > > > be participating in?"
> > > 
> > > Possibly because they know what people like you
> > > would try to make of it?
> > 
> > People like anybody. How many do you reckon would go 
> > ahead with learning, sorry "initiation", if they saw 
> > this vid first.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Ponder recent claims that "kneeling is kneeling"
> > > > and that it's not really a "bowing down" to what
> > > > these practitioners of the TM puja do at 09:35 into
> > > > the video. The person who created the puja and in
> > > > this video defines it as a ceremony "TO Guru Dev,"
> > > > and the costumed leaders of the TM movement that
> > > > surround him seem to have a slightly different
> > > > interpretation of what 'namah' means and how to
> > > > demonstrate it than the person who said "kneeling
> > > > is kneeling." Looks a lot like "bowing down" to me.
> > > 
> > > But that's exactly the point. Kneeling is kneeling;
> > > it depends on the person doing the kneeling what it
> > > means to that person.
> > 
> > This sounds really desperate. Put it in it's obvious 
> > context, what else could kneeling before a holy man mean?
> > My shoe laces need tying up? Or maybe feeling a bit tired 
> > and in need of a kneel?
> > 
> > 
> > > Why should it be the case that if a raja thinks
> > > kneeling means bowing down to Guru Dev, therefore
> > > that must be what the student about to learn TM
> > > thinks? Is it some kind of magic telepathy that
> > > transfers this idea from the mind of the raja into
> > > the mind of the student, without the student even
> > > being aware of what has been put in his/her mind?
> > > And therefore kneeling is "bowing down" to the
> > > student even though the student doesn't think it is?
> > > 
> > > Boy, that's some heavy siddhi these rajas have!
> > > 
> > > > Check out the paintings on the walls and the way
> > > > that the room is decorated.
> > > 
> > > Will similar paintings and decorations bedeck the
> > > room in which the students learn TM?
> > > 
> > > > Check out the scene at 00:35 into the video and
> > > > the guy seated on a raised dias, higher than Maha-
> > > > rishi, and how he is dressed and the offerings and

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)


On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Marek Reavis wrote:

Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard --  
thanks for that.


Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just  
a posture, merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would  
assume that pose immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony  
(and on cue from the instructor), and not draw the immediate  
conclusion that the whole thing is religion-based is absurd.


But the gestalt of your phrasing was just great, thanks again.


Thank you both...just what I was thinking.  "Kneeling is kneeling"
yeah, sure...not only is it intentional, it's not even particularly
comfortable, which is part of the idea I think, the idea of doing
something that does not come naturally to show devotion.
Anyway, thanks to you both for pointing out, once again, the
absurdities some of the TBers will go to in the never-ending
quest for legitimacy.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread curtisdeltablues

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:

> I'd say we do a poll of how many would've learnt TM
> if they knew it was going to be like this but I think
> some of us might have lost thier objectivity.
>

I was only 16 whe I went to my intro, and at the time very religiously 
motivated.  I had been doing yoga for about 6 months (my friend and I did 
assanas in the waiting room before being initiated ,much to the chagrin of our 
teacher who sent someone out to tell us to cool it! I was kind of shocked when 
they taught us assanas on my first residence course because the teacher made it 
seem like thery weren't necessary with TM.  He had been worried that I was 
doing unauthorized assanas, not purified by Maharishi's approval.)

Having read the Meditations of Maharishi, the reprint of 4 SRM pamphlets before 
the intro, I had some pointed questions about God realization which were 
quickly stifled during the intro and again during the private interview after 
the prep. They gave me just enough wink wink nudge nudge that ALL my desires 
would be fulfilled with TM that I went ahead.  But like most teens dealing with 
adults (they were only in their mid 20's) I sensed that pushing them further 
would not be cool.  It felt a little weird and it took me a while to get used 
to the duplicity game of TM language. After the advanced lecture which dealt 
with God realization openly, I questioned them about their dodginess at the 
intro and got the whole "wise shouldn't delude the ignorant" angle.  As a 
snarky teen I ate that shit up!  Yeah, that's the ticket, I'M the wise and we 
just feed the scientific charts to the ignorant.  I started doing intro 
lectures with the teacher that first year and learned the rules of talking to 
the "public" and how little we could trust their ignorant asses with the deeper 
perspective.  So I was down with the religious angle from the start and would 
have more happily started without the SIMS shuffle routine.  I was hardcore SRM 
baby!

I enjoyed being an insider but I sensed the duplicity from the start and the 
mixed message almost kept me from starting TM. I wanted GC, not lower blood 
lactate!  But the calming reassurance of the charts did reinforce that it was a 
"real experience. On another level I did take the charts seriously, not knowing 
my total inability to interpret their actual meaning or scientific merit.Or the 
teachers for that matter, who were not college grads.  It had a "truthiness" 
vibe that worked on me.

Taking and teaching SCI the next year developed the double line shtick as an 
instinct.  I was an insider now, a KNOWER of reality.  Oh yeah!  MIU TTC, more 
of the same message about the levels of knowledge and how to dole it out from 
my lEVEL.  MY LEVEL!  It wasn't that I thought I was so great because there 
were so many above my LEVEL that kept my ego in check, but it did impress on me 
that the public was on a lower level.  It was US against THEM, and they 
couldn't be trusted to follow what was best for them.   We held the thin golden 
line between the public and God realization.

I'm glad everyone has more access to all the movement's teaching and 
perspective with the Internet.  I believe that the movement's best PR move 
would be to embrace their cultural identity as Hindu-lite and give up the 
smirky "we are just like you", impression.  Belief-wise movement people aren't 
just like me.  They hold a set of beliefs and assumptions that the general 
public either doesn't know about, doesn't care about, doesn't agree with, or 
has their own version of from their own spirituality. 

I heard one single refrain from all the reporters I talked to when I first got 
out of TM who had contact with movement reps.  They all said that they knew 
something was up, something was being hidden and dodged in the answers, but 
they just couldn't put their finger on what it was.  The movement presents 
itself to the public as if it has something to hide, something it can't trust 
the public to know, and that duplicity with its implied condescension,  hurts 
the movement and the kind of public who might dig TM.  Nobody likes a slippery 
Sam. 

But the problem is that the movement has run the double line teaching so long 
it has become internalized.  Many discussions here take that form.  Once you 
are on the PR language track, it has its own logic and vocabulary.  And the 
movement is a master at keeping it separate from the Non-PR beliefs.  So it is 
not likely that the movement will ever, as most religions do, give an upfront 
list of beliefs that are assumed.  Even without a mandate that the initiate 
adapt them they should be revealed upfront.

But they just can't bring themselves to be that open.

Because deep down, the movement believes in its heart of hearts, that the WISE 
should not DELUDE the IGNORANT.  And they also believe which side of that line 
all the rest of us outside the movement are on.

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfri

[FairfieldLife] I - You - Me - We? [1 Attachment]

2009-04-18 Thread Arhata Osho

I - You - Me - We?

April 18, 2009
The most important word in the English language is ‘iumewe’!? With out I and 
me, can ‘you’ really be known and is there any possibility for ‘us’ or ‘we’?  
Is not ‘help’ a word to consider but then, ‘I’ is needed and, certainly ‘you’! 
Words, words, who cares but, then again ‘we’ must, for what they mean to ‘you’ 
and ‘me’.  If ‘you’ or ‘I’ need ‘help’, ‘I’ may need ‘you’ or, you ‘me’!

Can ‘I’ trust ‘you’ to come to my aid to ‘help’?  Is not ‘trust’ a word that 
needs to be considered as one that ‘you’ and ‘I’ need to create for that bond 
that makes life a little sweeter.  It may be friends or family but can ‘we’, 
‘you’, or ‘I’ do without ‘friends’ or ‘family’ when ‘we’ need that ‘help’?  Can 
‘I’ do anything in life without others giving and, ‘I’ receiving?  

Does the world go round without any of ‘us’ connecting, preferably with 
something that keeps ‘us’ in harmony and away from harm’s way?  The world may 
not need ‘us’ as much as ‘we’ need it to give what ‘we’ need to sustain life.  
However, sustaining life isn’t enough to make ‘our’ world go round with harmony 
and oh yes, ‘love’.  Where ‘love’ is ‘love’ grows and provides the light and 
nurturing that ‘we’ all need!  Can ‘you’ find ‘love’ and ‘I’ too, so we can 
experience ‘we’ found love!

Does ‘meaning’ for living lose it’s luster if ‘love’ doesn’t fill ‘our’ hearts 
and every moment of living?  Can ‘I’ do without ‘you’ and ‘you’ without me for 
very long?  We are all interdependent on the sun, moon, and stars as well as 
all that’s here to keep our lives filled with the possibility of ‘hope’ and the 
‘love’ that can reach to ‘you’ and ‘I’ that make up the ‘we’.  Take away the 
‘breath of love’ and all of ‘us’ wither away as if ‘we’ never visited here to 
find and experience ‘love’.  I need you and you need me and, we, with love, 
have the freedom to create anything we want to make life better for ‘you’!
(stream of consciousness)

                Yesss Self Love Center

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

[FairfieldLife] Paul McCartney Rocks On

 http://www.mydesert.com/coachella



Bruce Fessier • The Desert Sun

• April 18, 2009










It’s a weighty responsibility being the soundtrack to a generation.Frank 
Sinatra knew that. Paul McCartney is probably the only other man in history who 
knows it, too.

Bob
Dylan is the voice of a generation, but his songs don’t accompany a
lifetime of memories for as many people as the songs of Sinatra and
McCartney.

McCartney, like Sinatra, takes his responsibility as
an inhabitant in the hearts and minds of tens of millions of people
very seriously.

It would have been nice if he could have
disregarded some of his lesser works in his headline set Friday at
Coachella. Coachella is a festival about not making compromises. An
artist does what he loves and if there’s an audience for it, fine. If
not, there are four other music venues with something else to offer.

But
McCartney is of the era in which entertainers felt they had to satisfy
all of their fans all of the time because they were their life blood.

And
there were enough people in that audience who bought Wings records to
make McCartney believe he owed them an entertaining time.

I wish
McCartney hadn’t opened his set with the Wings song, “Jet” -- even if
it’s one of the better Wings songs. And I wish he hadn’t followed that
with “Drive My Car” -- even if it is a Beatles song.

McCartney’s
got interesting on the seventh song when his band started playing Jimi
Hendrix’ “Foxy Lady.” It was a good rendition and the surprise of
McCartney playing Hendrix could have equaled the impact of Prince
playing Radiohead last year.

But McCartney stopped. That wasn’t his soundtrack.

Then
McCartney got off the main track again with a ‘50s song The Beatles
used to sing in Liverpool called “Honey Hush.” This was cool and
acceptable. This was McCartney at his most raw. His passion was
contagious.

It prepared his audience for another sidetrack --
his side project, The Fireman. He performed “Highway” from his
brilliant “Electric Arguments” CD. 

Unfortunately, his road
band didn’t have the technical facility to reproduce the studio sound
he got with his Fireman colleague, Youth. It didn't have that cutting
edge.

He did one other song by The Fireman, a song celebrating
the election of Barack Obama called “Sing the Changes.” It was a valid
inclusion because of its deeper meaning, but it was too bad we couldn’t
have heard the most challenging songs by The Fireman. In “Nothing Too
Much Just Out Of Sight,” McCartney channels Tom Waits. “Don’t Stop
Running” runs 10-and-a-half minutes long.

The best McCartney
songs at Coachella were the ones that meant as much to McCartney as
they did to his fans. “Long and Winding Road” has taken on new meaning
to him since the wind-down of The Beatles. He announced after he sang
it that this was a very emotional evening for him because it was the
anniversary of his wife, Linda’s death. Then he sang “My Love” --
“Don’t ever ask me why I never say good-bye to my love” – and a Wings
song never sounded better.

.He talked about writing “Blackbird” in the middle of the civil rights 
struggle. “And now we have President Obama,” he said.

He
talked about writing “Here Today” after John Lennon’s death. He gently
sang, “I love you” to his slain co-writer as the screen filled with
placards with Lennon’s picture on it.

Then he played mandolin on
“Everybody Dance Tonight” from his excellent but modest-selling “Memory
Almost Full” CD in 2007. It’s a simple song, but just far enough off
the beaten track to be Coachella worthy.

McCartney’s concert,
like his career, was inconsistent. But, like his career, it went so
long and had so many great moments, it will go down as a great
Coachella moment.
It wasn’t quite as great as Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails or Roger 
Waters, but it’s up there in the top 10.

When
he could take “A Day in the Life,” which some critics have called the
greatest rock song of all time, and make it better by segueing into
Lennon’s “Give Peace A Chance,” and then top that time after time as
his two-and-a-half-hour set wound down, you know this was a special
Coachella moment.

>From “Give Peace A Chance” he launched into
“Let It Be” and it was a perfect fit. Then he went into his biggest
extravaganza number, “Live and Let Die,” with amazing fireworks. Then
he got the audience singing along to “Hey Jude,” one of the great crowd
sing-alongs of all time. It’s also one of the ultimate get-off songs in
rock history, but McCartney then came back for several encores.

“Yer
Birthday,” had special meaning because of the placement of the song
after learning of Linda’s anniversary. And the sound was suddenly
clearer than ever.

After “Live and Let Die,” it was all Beatles
material: “Can’t Buy Me Love,” “Lady Madonna,” “Yesterday,” “Helter
Skelter” and “Get Back.” He finally ended with the album-ending
rendition of “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band,” which segued
into “The End,” like the Cirque du Soleil produ

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

Richard, the phrase "in need of a kneel" got me laughing so hard -- thanks for 
that.

Kneeling is such an intentional posture; and the idea that it's just a posture, 
merely equivalent with any other, and that a person would assume that pose 
immediately following a religious(-type) ceremony (and on cue from the 
instructor), and not draw the immediate conclusion that the whole thing is 
religion-based is absurd.

But the gestalt of your phrasing was just great, thanks again.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> 
> > > This page contains an embedded video of Maharishi
> > > leading a group performance of the TM puja, sur-
> > > rounded by the Rajas in full costume.
> > 
> > > Whatever your stance about the "TM is/isn't a
> > > religion" issue, ask yourself, "If the TMO was
> > > proud enough of this occasion to broadcast it on
> > > its 'Maharishi Channel,' why don't they place this
> > > or similar videos on the tm.org website, so that
> > > all of the million kids they hope to teach TM to
> > > can see a preview of the ceremony they will soon
> > > be participating in?"
> > 
> > Possibly because they know what people like you
> > would try to make of it?
> 
> People like anybody. How many do you reckon would go 
> ahead with learning, sorry "initiation", if they saw 
> this vid first.
> 
> > 
> > > Ponder recent claims that "kneeling is kneeling"
> > > and that it's not really a "bowing down" to what
> > > these practitioners of the TM puja do at 09:35 into
> > > the video. The person who created the puja and in
> > > this video defines it as a ceremony "TO Guru Dev,"
> > > and the costumed leaders of the TM movement that
> > > surround him seem to have a slightly different
> > > interpretation of what 'namah' means and how to
> > > demonstrate it than the person who said "kneeling
> > > is kneeling." Looks a lot like "bowing down" to me.
> > 
> > But that's exactly the point. Kneeling is kneeling;
> > it depends on the person doing the kneeling what it
> > means to that person.
> 
> This sounds really desperate. Put it in it's obvious 
> context, what else could kneeling before a holy man mean?
> My shoe laces need tying up? Or maybe feeling a bit tired 
> and in need of a kneel?
> 
> 
> > Why should it be the case that if a raja thinks
> > kneeling means bowing down to Guru Dev, therefore
> > that must be what the student about to learn TM
> > thinks? Is it some kind of magic telepathy that
> > transfers this idea from the mind of the raja into
> > the mind of the student, without the student even
> > being aware of what has been put in his/her mind?
> > And therefore kneeling is "bowing down" to the
> > student even though the student doesn't think it is?
> > 
> > Boy, that's some heavy siddhi these rajas have!
> > 
> > > Check out the paintings on the walls and the way
> > > that the room is decorated.
> > 
> > Will similar paintings and decorations bedeck the
> > room in which the students learn TM?
> > 
> > > Check out the scene at 00:35 into the video and
> > > the guy seated on a raised dias, higher than Maha-
> > > rishi, and how he is dressed and the offerings and
> > > adornments laid out at his feet. Dat's Da King,
> > > the current leader of the TM movement. Nothing 
> > > religious about him and how *he* is presented and
> > > treated and his relationship to other people, 
> > > right?
> > 
> > Will he be present, complete with offerings and
> > adornments, in the room in which the students learn
> > TM?
> > 
> > Again, is it some kind of magical telepathy that
> > invisibly recreates the room in the video, along
> > with King Tony, in the room where the students
> > learn TM?
> 
> I guess the whole point here is that they try to hide
> all this until you are in the TMO enough to subscribe
> to the Marshy channel or curious enough to go looking
> it up on the net.
> 
> Here's a funny (and of course true) story:
> 
> A couple of new meditators were one of the last weekend
> courses held at an academy in England before the scorpion-
> land amusement. They had dinner and a pleasant chat with
> the other CPs and then went to the meeting room where 
> they were told what the programme was etc. The teacher 
> then put on a vid of King Tony, after a few minutes they
> looked at each other, got up, walked out, packed their
> bags and left.
> 
> I'd say we do a poll of how many would've learnt TM
> if they knew it was going to be like this but I think
> some of us might have lost thier objectivity.
>

[FairfieldLife] Colbert Coalition Video on Gay Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/the-colbert-coalitions-an_n_188124.html

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

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

> *Literally* everyone on this forum -- 
> including my own long-time stalker

Every one of Barry's countless references to me as
his "stalker" is a barefaced, malicious, out-and-out
lie, an assertion that is knowingly contrary to fact.

> You launched into a weeks-long harangue against
> me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women
> and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older
> man ways." You basically lost it and became a
> stalker yourself. In the process you heavily
> insulted not only me but the young women, neither
> of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in,

While I agree that Edg's harangues were just about
totally unjustified, let's for the record look at
what Barry *actually* said in the post in question:

"While it might be really enjoyable to ball the
19-year-old's sweet little buns off -- or even those
of her slightly older sister -- that's almost
certainly not going to happen."

There's not a thing *wrong* with his finding the
young women of sexual interest; it would be strange
if he hadn't. And he claimed explicitly in his post
that he had no intention of trying to consummate
that interest, which is why Edg's tirades were so
utterly unwarranted.

But Barry, as usual, can't quite get it up to tell
the *whole* truth, even when he's not lying through
his teeth.

[FairfieldLife] 'Harrison Gets Star in Hollywood'

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Former Beatle George Harrison received a
posthumous star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Tuesday, with a little
help from such friends as Paul McCartney, Eric Idle and Tom Hanks.


As about one thousand fans looked on, Harrison's star was unveiled
outside the landmark Capitol Records tower by his Los Angeles-born
widow Olivia and 30-year-old son Dhani.


"He was a beautiful, mystical man living in a material world, and he
was as funny as the day is long, and just as perplexing," Olivia said.
"George, this day is for you."


Added Hanks, "All things must pass, sure. But George is going to live forever."


Harrison died of cancer in 2001, aged 58. Idle, a member of the
Monty Python comedy troupe, noted that Harrison actually drew his last
breath in McCartney's Los Angeles home, "and it's one of the reasons I
won't go and stay with John Cleese."


McCartney did not speak to the crowd, but instead rubbed Olivia Harrison's 
shoulders, joked with Dhani and waved to fans.


Other guests included Jeff Lynne and Tom Petty, who played with
Harrison in the Traveling Wilburys, Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh,
producer T-Bone Burnett, and Olivia's sister Linda Arias.


Security was unusually intense, a likely result of both the murder
of John Lennon in 1980 and the 1999 attack on the Harrisons in their
English home by a knife-wielding intruder. Even at the VIP luncheon
afterward in the Capitol recording studio, the Harrisons were closely
shadowed by a team of security guards.


Capitol, which paid $25,000 to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce for
the star, said it would release a hits collection spanning Harrison's
solo career on June 16. 

 




Paul McCartney (L) wipes off the star while posing
for pictures with (L-R) Hollywood Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
Leron Gubler, Eric Idle, Olivia Harrison, city councilmember Tom
LaBonge, Tom Hanks and Dhani Harrison at a ceremony where George
Harrison is honored posthumously with a star on the Hollywood Walk of
Fame in Los Angeles April 14, 2009.

RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

Since there's all this talk about my wife, here's a photo of her:
http://www.book-cover-design.com/about-us.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:41 AM, raunchydog  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  
> wrote:
>
> I'd rather drink gasoline and set myself on fire than live in a gun toting 
> Texas.
>

But doncha see?  This is the state GW Bush got his start in ... Oh, never mind.

[FairfieldLife] Falsification of Theories (was 900 Pandits)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > >  
> > > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific
> > > > method.  You give more or less weight to different descriptions
> > > > as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the 
> > > >overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable 
> > > theories you can conjure up.  
> > 
> > Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit 
> > out of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice 
> > day, is a religion?
> 
> I never said that. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Reading posts over time of a 
number of people, My mind tends to generalizes things (ah the problems of 
Induction)

>  And I would never use this method to determine such a thing.  I would use 
> the definition of words to assess how these concepts are used.  You can 
> practice TM twice a day and not have it be your religion. 

That I my point. it can be a totally secular practice -- as drinking wine, 
smoking ganja, or doing good works can be. And each of these things can ALSO be 
done in a religious context. Its like a Venn diagram, it can overlap, but still 
have areas of each circle that are 
quite independent.

> But I also believe that teaching TM in schools 

Is any one proposing that? I mean literally doing initiations in schools? As I 
understand it, in the Lynch program, the teaching is all done outside of 
school. And its voluntary. But the kids can also voluntarily do it during 
silent period. 

Like hatha yoga. It has religious roots. But if kids learned it outside of 
school and wanted to roll out their yoga mats during lunch, that's hardly 
promoting a religion, IMO.

> is promoting a religious practice because of how it is taught and its 
> origins.  I can also drink wine and take bread in a church and consider it an 
> type of piss poor Tapas bar fare.  But that doesn't mean we should have a 
> priest come in to third grade to see if it settles the kids down if he 
> performs mass for them.

The example of this and Lynchian TM done voluntarily during silent periods in 
school isn't very parallel IMO. If a TM teacher came into 

> You are trying to use the scientific method in the wrong place. 

The part of the scientific method I am talking about is critical thinking about 
hypotheses and inner models. Challenging them. Seeing if it holds up in all 
situations. I think that is a valuable thing to do in most areas of life -- 
including art, love, religion, philosophy, literature, dating, relations, and 
fixing the car. 

There are other areas of knowledge that we use for such questions and the 
answers are not so clear cut.  That is why we have courts to decide some of 
these question and you may disagree with their conclusions.  

I don't understand, The courts are a good example of what I am referring to. 
The courts are based on an adversarial system. One side raises a hypothesis -- 
a model - and the othr side tries to beat the shit out of it. Thats precisely 
what I am referring to in recommending that for inner mental models. Let the 
expansive visionary side of you propose things, and let the contractive 
analytical part tear the shit out of it. Its like brainstorming exercise. The 
first step is crazy wild idea generation (expansive). A later step is to critic 
the ideas without mercy (contraction). 

I was not proposing actual double blind studies. Simply thought experiments. Or 
logic analysis. Not unlike - but not the same --as  what Byron Katie does in 
the first few questions

Do you know its true?
How do you know its true?
Do you believe its true in all cases?
Can you imagine it not being true in some circumstances?
Under what circumstances?
Under what circumstances would the hypothesis be false (falsifiable -- this is 
the key step)
For categorization problems, using mental Venn diagrams, do the two things 
intersect at all? Overlap, some common areas, some not common areas, or totally 
contained within.

I think it is useful and productive to test ones conclusions and inner mental 
models in this way. We often believe a lot of crap. Simply because someone made 
a compelling argument. (and Turq this is a compliment not a slam)  For example, 
Turq is a good writer and can write some compelling arguments for a case. a 
good cafe rap. People will nod their heads.  Just using Turq as an example, 
sometimes I think Whoa Nelly, thats correct what he says, aka A, and taken 
alone, that would be true, but what about B C an D which he did not mention 
(and was not the purpose of his rap or essay).  Turq or any one may tee up the 
issue, but we are the ones that gotta take a swing at it. Before accepting a 
conclusion, if i

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing (Is kneeling ever just kneeling)

2009-04-18 Thread Hugo

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:


> > This page contains an embedded video of Maharishi
> > leading a group performance of the TM puja, sur-
> > rounded by the Rajas in full costume.
> 
> > Whatever your stance about the "TM is/isn't a
> > religion" issue, ask yourself, "If the TMO was
> > proud enough of this occasion to broadcast it on
> > its 'Maharishi Channel,' why don't they place this
> > or similar videos on the tm.org website, so that
> > all of the million kids they hope to teach TM to
> > can see a preview of the ceremony they will soon
> > be participating in?"
> 
> Possibly because they know what people like you
> would try to make of it?

People like anybody. How many do you reckon would go 
ahead with learning, sorry "initiation", if they saw 
this vid first.

> 
> > Ponder recent claims that "kneeling is kneeling"
> > and that it's not really a "bowing down" to what
> > these practitioners of the TM puja do at 09:35 into
> > the video. The person who created the puja and in
> > this video defines it as a ceremony "TO Guru Dev,"
> > and the costumed leaders of the TM movement that
> > surround him seem to have a slightly different
> > interpretation of what 'namah' means and how to
> > demonstrate it than the person who said "kneeling
> > is kneeling." Looks a lot like "bowing down" to me.
> 
> But that's exactly the point. Kneeling is kneeling;
> it depends on the person doing the kneeling what it
> means to that person.

This sounds really desperate. Put it in it's obvious 
context, what else could kneeling before a holy man mean?
My shoe laces need tying up? Or maybe feeling a bit tired 
and in need of a kneel?


> Why should it be the case that if a raja thinks
> kneeling means bowing down to Guru Dev, therefore
> that must be what the student about to learn TM
> thinks? Is it some kind of magic telepathy that
> transfers this idea from the mind of the raja into
> the mind of the student, without the student even
> being aware of what has been put in his/her mind?
> And therefore kneeling is "bowing down" to the
> student even though the student doesn't think it is?
> 
> Boy, that's some heavy siddhi these rajas have!
> 
> > Check out the paintings on the walls and the way
> > that the room is decorated.
> 
> Will similar paintings and decorations bedeck the
> room in which the students learn TM?
> 
> > Check out the scene at 00:35 into the video and
> > the guy seated on a raised dias, higher than Maha-
> > rishi, and how he is dressed and the offerings and
> > adornments laid out at his feet. Dat's Da King,
> > the current leader of the TM movement. Nothing 
> > religious about him and how *he* is presented and
> > treated and his relationship to other people, 
> > right?
> 
> Will he be present, complete with offerings and
> adornments, in the room in which the students learn
> TM?
> 
> Again, is it some kind of magical telepathy that
> invisibly recreates the room in the video, along
> with King Tony, in the room where the students
> learn TM?

I guess the whole point here is that they try to hide
all this until you are in the TMO enough to subscribe
to the Marshy channel or curious enough to go looking
it up on the net.

Here's a funny (and of course true) story:

A couple of new meditators were one of the last weekend
courses held at an academy in England before the scorpion-
land amusement. They had dinner and a pleasant chat with
the other CPs and then went to the meeting room where 
they were told what the programme was etc. The teacher 
then put on a vid of King Tony, after a few minutes they
looked at each other, got up, walked out, packed their
bags and left.

I'd say we do a poll of how many would've learnt TM
if they knew it was going to be like this but I think
some of us might have lost thier objectivity.

[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")

2009-04-18 Thread TurquoiseB

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> > > nablusoss1008 wrote: 
> > > Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated 
> > > that he had information that M and N had a sexual 
> > > relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, 
> > > quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in 
> > > life they so thoroughly identify with. . . . Lies upon 
> > > lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - 
> > > a deranged and deeply perverted soul. What then would 
> > > be more natural than to ask his wife if she thinks, 
> > > perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually 
> > > disoriented ? 
> > 
> > lurkernomore20002000" wrote:
> > I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon 
> > 4 or 5. I'm staying a Defcon 2, which is about the normal 
> > setting.
> 
> Lurk-nomo,
> 
> I admit to going to that energy level in my word usage, 
> but in real life over here behind the keyboard, not so much.
> 
> Where do we draw a line, Lurk?
> 
> Nab's poor brain is not creative enough to do any real 
> damage here, and his past posts surely have convinced all 
> but a few FFLers that he's in deep psychological trouble, 
> so his opinion about Rick's wife has zero merit, but 
> though he crossed a line due to his brokenness and deserves 
> our pity for being so public with his dysfunctions, I wanted 
> to underline that a slippery slope exists and that he was 
> eagerly dancing upon it.
> 
> Think now about my creativity and my past writings that 
> have used such graphic and raw terms -- isn't it true that 
> "the likes of me," could really take Nab's kind of attack 
> up several notches and really strike out with a cruel 
> targeting of those who are in the periphery of the lives 
> of the posters here?

Edg, I was going to let this slide as just 
another example of YOU lashing out, but t'would
seem that you need a reminder of how you do so.

Nabby's a twit. We all know that. There was no
call to ask for him to be banned. THAT was over
the top. 

Besides, what Lurk may be hinting at is that you
are not exactly in a position to call anyone here
on going over the top. Here's an example you might
resonate with, one that *includes* slurs against
other people.

Did you happen to read the link posted by Bob B.
in the "A poet with hate mail" post, about poet
Frederick Seidel? Here's the link again, if you
did not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12Seidel-t.html

In the article, the 73-year-old poet tells the
story of getting a hate message on his answering
machine from a reader who seemed not to like what
someone his age said about younger women and his
fondness for them. 

Now remember back to when I posted an innocent
tale of meeting two young women in a bar here in
Sitges and my delight at finding them both 1)
English speakers, 2) charming, 3) intelligent,
4) knowledgeable about music, and 5) fun to be 
with. *Literally* everyone on this forum -- 
including my own long-time stalker -- saw it 
as an innocent appreciation of a neat conver-
sation and two neat women. Everyone except you.

You launched into a weeks-long harangue against
me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women
and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older
man ways." You basically lost it and became a
stalker yourself. In the process you heavily
insulted not only me but the young women, neither
of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in,
one of whom who has become one of my best friends
here in Sitges, and has *still* endured the least
sexual or romantic interest from me. 

Basically, as I saw it then, because of your own
guilt feelings about a family situation, the situ-
ation of an older man *appreciating the company of 
younger women* pushed your buttons almost as much 
as Frederick Seidel's poems pushed his stalker's
buttons. She reacted by basically threatening his 
life. You contented yourself with calling me a 
predator, and persisting in doing so to this day.

So the next time you feel like getting up on a 
soapbox and declaring someone here persona non
grata, please remember this and many other inci-
dents in which you did far worse. 

You have a very selective memory when your 
righteous anger button gets pushed, one that
allows you to forget that you ain't exactly
righteous. 

I'm not looking to reopen the "predator" scenario,
just to remind you that of all the people here,
you are the LEAST competent to blast anyone for
lashing out in anger, and in unjustified, com-
pletely invented and projected anger. 

'Nuff said, I hope...

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Science Of Spiritual Marketing

2009-04-18 Thread enlightened_dawn11

sounds like you had your buttons pushed 30 years ago, and the buttons stuck in 
the pushed position. give it a rest.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I could not help but notice that none of the compulsive TM 
> defenders said anything about my reposting of the puja video 
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/215663).
> No one seemed to want to portray it as non-religious, or to
> explain why videos such as this were carefully removed from
> the main tm.org site. Instead, what seemed to happen was that
> these same TM defenders went into "attack mode" and started
> posting slams against me, Curtis, and others who viewed the
> puja video other than the way we "should" have.
> 
> I suspect the same thing will happen as a result of this post,
> although it is not intended to push buttons per se. Instead, 
> it's more of a "generalized rant," something I was thinking
> about while walking my dogs this morning, an examination of 
> two common forms of "spiritual marketing" that seem to arise 
> again and again over the course of history, in almost all 
> forms of spiritual practice and religion. A sane person would 
> be able to react to the ideas I present below *AS* ideas, 
> without getting their buttons pushed. We'll see if that 
> happens here on FFL. 
> 
> This Saturday morning cafe rap is about what I see as a two-
> pronged marketing approach that one sees in spiritual groups
> over and over and over throughout history. Both "prongs" in
> my opinion are based to some extent on elitism, and an appeal 
> to elitism in the "buyers" the marketing approach is aimed at.
> 
> The first prong -- most commonly seen in "young" spiritual
> movements, especially those with a charismatic leader, one
> who is possibly still alive -- is the pure appeal to elitism.
> Its advertising "tag line" could be synopsized as, "We are
> the chosen people; join us and you can be one of them, too."
> 
> This approach WORKS for a great number of human beings; they
> would like nothing better than to be considered part of an
> elite. And they would like this even if it costs them money;
> sometimes *especially* if it costs them money. For some, the
> more it costs them, the more elite they feel. Needless to say, 
> the TM movement used this approach for many of its early years, 
> and in the last years of Maharishi's life depended on it 
> almost entirely, forgetting the rabble and focusing on
> attracting only the rich. 
> 
> But the problem with this approach to spiritual marketing is
> that it works only as long as the group using it is perceived
> as "cool." There has to be an "energy" or "vibe" about the
> people claiming to the chosen people before you want to become
> one of them. That "energy" seems to have gone away in the TM
> movement, along with the youth of its "chosen people."
> 
> So enter the second of the two-pronged marketing approach,
> "the white man's burden." This phrase comes from the days of
> the British Empire, in which this approach was used to exploit
> Third World countries under the guise of "saving" them. It
> is a staple of missionaries and evangelists. And how many 
> modern TV preachers raise millions of dollars by doing 
> "Save The Children" campaigns? 
> 
> This seems to be the approach being tried out by the TMO 
> currently. Anyone aware of the *actual* numbers of people 
> starting TM (and thus the income and "new growth" coming 
> into the movement) must have noticed that the old appeal
> to elitism was no longer working. So this new approach is
> to talk about "kids at risk," and thus appeal to those who
> (naturally) want to help them. At $600 a pop, all contrib-
> uted by those who, coincidentally, get to feel all elite
> because they're helping out these "kids at risk."
> 
> Whether this approach will work is another question. In
> countries other than the United States (with its tradition
> of strong separation of religion and education), it might
> work well. But to do that in the U.S., the TMO has to 
> consciously HIDE its real nature. It has to exercise 
> "revisionist history" and "clean up" its main websites
> to *remove* videos like the one linked to above. Because
> if they are part of its marketing image, the leaders of
> the TMO know what would happen (and may still happen) to 
> their "kids at risk" campaign -- it would run into 
> Constitutional hot water.
> 
> There are OTHER forms of spiritual marketing, of course.
> The one I'm most fond of I characterize as being a lot 
> like running a "spiritual bookstore." The owners of most
> spiritual bookstores all probably have a "preferred" spir-
> itual trip of their own, but most often they don't "push"
> it or evangelize it. Instead, they just offer information.
> People come in, browse through the books about their path
> AND other paths, and determine for themselves which appeals
> to them the most. No sales pitch, no "We're better than
> those other guys" marketing pitch, no att

Re: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Map of Vanishing Employment