date:20090506

Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to 
a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone
she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a 
Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai 
Lama had some positive things to say about former 
president George W. Bush.

IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to 
interject a thought stopper into the conversation.
The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something
good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad,
then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either.

This just days after doing exactly the same thing 
when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying
that in her opinion all the quantum consciousness
nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person 
posted what was clearly intended to be another thought
stopper by pointing to a few anonymous reviews of
the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds
were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the
author, and think negatively about her.

Add to this a long history of this poster and other
posters on this forum utilizing thought stoppers 
to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a
liar and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to
stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos-
sibly having any positive qualities and instead
think of them as something less than human. Call 
someone a predator and again the readers are sup-
posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused
person off.

In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who
use such thought stoppers are demonstrating, more
than anything else, how quickly their own thought
processes stop working.

They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They
cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush
and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush
is bad, he is ALL bad; there can be no possible
positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual-
ities are not *possible* because he's bad, and
if a person is bad, he's ALL bad. That's what
they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone
like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find
something in him to praise -- anything -- then *he*
must be linked to the bad Bush and be bad 
himself. 

Same with calling someone a liar. Science tells
us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies 
a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves
and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to
themselves. Only an idiot would claim, I never 
lie. But some idiots not only claim this, they
attempt to use the epithet Liar! as a thought
stopper. Again, the implication is that by calling
someone a liar, you can make people think of the
person you are attempting to demonize as ALL liar. 
If they're a liar, the rationale of the thought-
stopper-hurler goes, they are *complete* liars. 
They cannot possibly have any other qualities or 
attributes. *Stop thinking* of this person as 
human; only think of them as a 'liar.'

Same with the epithet predator. It conjures up
images of child molesters and worse. And it is
*supposed* to. Hurling the term predator at some-
one you don't like is designed to get people to
*stop thinking* about that person as human. They
are supposed to think of them the way YOU do, as
one-dimensional, as ONLY a predator.

Same with invoking Kali Yuga as a catch-all
excuse for why things suck. The idea is that one
can throw that term out and people will stop think-
ing that there is anything they can possibly *do*
to *change* how things suck. You *can't* really
change it, goes the thought stopper rationale,
because it's Kali Yuga. Things *always* suck in
Kali Yuga.

I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of 
people on this forum FALL for thought stoppers.
The TM movement was not long on compassion. It
never taught its followers that a person could be
partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was 
always the clear-cut It's only the Pandavas and 
the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints
scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no 
middle ground. So if a person is characterized as 
black, they are ALL black. 

As a result IMO, many people who have come out of 
such an environment are easy prey for those who use 
thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people 
who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use 
the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. 
They know that the audience they are talking to
has been taught to *despise* shades of gray and
the possibility of feeling compassion for someone
who has been accused of being bad. They know that
many people coming out of a TM environment will 
automatically consider George W. Bush ALL bad 
simply because Maharishi once characterized him
as bad. Therefore they can springboard off of
that and suggest that because someone *else* they
want to demonize, like the Dalai Lama, once said
something positive about Bush, he might be ALL 
bad, too. 

I think that the use of thought stoppers like this
is the sign of a lazy intellect. The person who
uses them

[FairfieldLife] Get out the vote! (Re: Sexy Time)

excellent! one of your best i've seen...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 In café light computer glow
 A spider weaves his web
 To snag a tasty boy or girl
 And trap them in his thread
 
 Suspended tethered by his wits
 In trance are they before him
 The shallow dishpan of his love
 Preys on forever grim
 
 A one night stand a piper's dance 
 Lovers leaving ever
 His empty net a wisp of wind
 Scattered dust and severed
 
 Twilight moon in Sitges waning 
 Youthful bloom a-fading
 Cruising beaches wrinkled, naked
 Reaper's cloak evading
 
 raunchydog

[FairfieldLife] Get out the vote! (Re: Sexy Time)

4 questions for you, regarding your statement below:

1. Is it true?

2. Can you absolutely know that it's true?

3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?

4. Who would you be without the thought?

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

 You're just upset because you pretend to 
 have a cunt but don't. When someone calls
 *you* a cunt, it is clear that they're
 invoking the British definition of the
 term (a person who is thoroughly disliked), 
 not the American one. Either that, or they
 are mistaking you for the 3rd full-length 
 album by the Australian grindcore band 
 Blood Duster. :-)
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  you are crackin' me up!!!
   
  here are a few quotes from YOUR HERO Barry Wright, NOT included 
  in your precious list of the few nasties on this list:
  
  All three of them deserved to be called that
  because they were acting like cunts.
  
  You're just a cunt.
  
  That said, Palin really IS a bimbo and a cunt
  
  Hell hath no fury like a cunt ignored.
  
  Ah, I get it now. It's that time of year again,
  that week when the Who Can Be The Most Argumentative
  Cunt On Fairfield Life Contest rolls around.
  
  LOL! what a bone head you are!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?

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


 I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of 
 people on this forum FALL for thought stoppers.
 The TM movement was not long on compassion. It
 never taught its followers that a person could be
 partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was 
 always the clear-cut It's only the Pandavas and 
 the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints
 scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no 
 middle ground. So if a person is characterized as 
 black, they are ALL black. 
 
 As a result IMO, many people who have come out of 
 such an environment are easy prey for those who use 
 thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people 
 who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use 
 the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. 
 They know that the audience they are talking to
 has been taught to *despise* shades of gray and
 the possibility of feeling compassion for someone
 who has been accused of being bad. They know that
 many people coming out of a TM environment will 
 automatically consider George W. Bush ALL bad 
 simply because Maharishi once characterized him
 as bad. Therefore they can springboard off of
 that and suggest that because someone *else* they
 want to demonize, like the Dalai Lama, once said
 something positive about Bush, he might be ALL 
 bad, too. 
 
 I think that the use of thought stoppers like this
 is the sign of a lazy intellect. The person who
 uses them frequently is demonstrating that they
 are incapable of thinking *past* a thought stopper,
 and that *their* thought processes stop at the first
 convenient label. And they want you to be just like 
 them.

yes, i agree many on this board use thought stoppers, not very effectively 
though. seems by your own example, you have some baggage left over from your 
cult days:

You're just a cunt.- Barry Wright, October 14th, 2008

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 1:26 AM, sparaig wrote:

Well, I think you need to ask some different questions, namely,  
can an

actual attentional improvement be found in the subjects, will they be
randomized AND will that stand when compared to good controls, not
just some lame controls? Of course if they're to prove attentional
resiliency, they also need to show neuroplastic changes. There are a
new and growing list of criteria in this area.




Right and Fred and Aleric have never mentioned neoplsticity in any  
TM context...


Mentioning does not constitute scientific proof. I'm sure they've  
mentioned all sorts of things.




And Hari Sharma wasn't talking about free radicals and MAK 20 years  
ago because

he was an ignorant fool


That's a huge non sequitur--what does that have to do with ADHD?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:


As I said, we agree to disagree...

Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i
interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.



Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
(not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to
as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give
me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their
own, just give me power, NOW.




Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?



That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try  
to skip the angas.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 1:28 AM, sparaig wrote:


Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of
years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to  
know,
even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers  
learn to
talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and  
that

ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite
convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable.

Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof...



Aside from the thousands of non-TM hits on the term pure  
consciousness event
cointed by someone writing about TM research and adopted by all  
sorts of non-TM reserachers over teh past decade or so.


Attaching coached experiences to ambiguous wording is of little  
value. Show us the hard data.


The actual originator of the term, Robert Foreman pointed out, pure  
consciousness is not a very helpful word. It's not only imprecise,  
you can attach whatever you want to it. That's why it's better to  
have an experiential understanding of the various states of  
consciousness so we can label them precisely, this is murcha/swooning  
or this is a certain type of laya, rather than to try to impress with  
big sounding words. Creating new words and avoiding traditional ones  
is a great way to fool people, but that's typically not the goal of  
authentic spirituality.




The question really is not to define the fact—for we cannot do that— 
but to get at

and experience it.

- Edward Carpenter (1844–1929)

A word is a word. An experience is an experience. Both are different.

- S. Shigematsu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  As I said, we agree to disagree...
 
  Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many 
legitimate i
  interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.
 
 
  Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
  (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
  subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred 
to
  as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: 
give
  me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on 
their
  own, just give me power, NOW.
 
 
 
  Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?
 
 
 That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those 
 who try  to skip the angas.


So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? 

Self-certified?

These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied
tradition as Yoga.

You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh?

The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda 
(V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis 
and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people.

The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group 
of Aryan peoples.

According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of 
the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in 
central and north-west India in the 6th century BC.

Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient 
Janapadas.

What's the instruction for skipping them?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?

This is Barry's funniest post yet. And it will go
right over the heads of most here.

His *entire post* is one sweeping thought-stopper.

He has achieved 100 percent self-reference.

You are to dismiss immediately any point of view,
Barry is telling you, that appears to conflict in
any way with the views of the TM critics, because
such points of view are obviously intended as
thought-stoppers.

Any evidence, for example, demonstrating that the
Dalai Lama does not have perfect judgment is
designed to make you stop having any thoughts that
there is any good whatsoever to be found in the
Dalai Lama. If he has any less than 100 percent
perfect judgment, you are supposed to think that
must mean he is All Bad.

Any demonstration that anybody has a negative
opinion of Meera Nanda's work is designed to lead
you to believe that she is Completely Wrong About
Everything.

When you encounter such scurrilous thought-stoppers,
therefore, you must Stop Thinking about them. You
cannot allow any negative thoughts to enter your
mind and pollute your positive views. And of
course you must think of those who attempt to
introduce such negative thoughts into your mind as
people who themselves Do Not Think and don't want
you to think either.

There is no such thing as ambiguity or ambivalence
or nuance in Barry's World, so anyone who attempts
to suggest that all is not black or white is
obviously No Good At All.



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

 Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to 
 a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone
 she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a 
 Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai 
 Lama had some positive things to say about former 
 president George W. Bush.
 
 IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to 
 interject a thought stopper into the conversation.
 The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something
 good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad,
 then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either.
 
 This just days after doing exactly the same thing 
 when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying
 that in her opinion all the quantum consciousness
 nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person 
 posted what was clearly intended to be another thought
 stopper by pointing to a few anonymous reviews of
 the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds
 were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the
 author, and think negatively about her.
 
 Add to this a long history of this poster and other
 posters on this forum utilizing thought stoppers 
 to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a
 liar and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to
 stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos-
 sibly having any positive qualities and instead
 think of them as something less than human. Call 
 someone a predator and again the readers are sup-
 posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused
 person off.
 
 In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who
 use such thought stoppers are demonstrating, more
 than anything else, how quickly their own thought
 processes stop working.
 
 They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They
 cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush
 and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush
 is bad, he is ALL bad; there can be no possible
 positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual-
 ities are not *possible* because he's bad, and
 if a person is bad, he's ALL bad. That's what
 they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone
 like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find
 something in him to praise -- anything -- then *he*
 must be linked to the bad Bush and be bad 
 himself. 
 
 Same with calling someone a liar. Science tells
 us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies 
 a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves
 and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to
 themselves. Only an idiot would claim, I never 
 lie. But some idiots not only claim this, they
 attempt to use the epithet Liar! as a thought
 stopper. Again, the implication is that by calling
 someone a liar, you can make people think of the
 person you are attempting to demonize as ALL liar. 
 If they're a liar, the rationale of the thought-
 stopper-hurler goes, they are *complete* liars. 
 They cannot possibly have any other qualities or 
 attributes. *Stop thinking* of this person as 
 human; only think of them as a 'liar.'
 
 Same with the epithet predator. It conjures up
 images of child molesters and worse. And it is
 *supposed* to. Hurling the term predator at some-
 one you don't like is designed to get people to
 *stop thinking* about that person as human. They
 are supposed to think of them the way YOU do, as
 one-dimensional, as ONLY a predator.
 
 Same with invoking Kali Yuga as a catch-all
 excuse for why things suck. The idea is that one
 can throw that term out and people will stop think-
 ing that there is anything they

Re: [FairfieldLife] Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?



On May 6, 2009, at 3:04 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:



I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of
people on this forum FALL for thought stoppers.
The TM movement was not long on compassion. It
never taught its followers that a person could be
partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was
always the clear-cut It's only the Pandavas and
the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints
scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no
middle ground. So if a person is characterized as
black, they are ALL black.



You're missing one of the biggest TM org thought stoppers:

Pure Consciousness.

We were supposed to think wow, what could be better that PURE  
consciousness? I don't need to look and farther or look into this  
any more, if it's pure (and the experience they're telling me I will  
have is Pure Consciousness), then I need look no further.


But what's happening is other meditation researchers are seeing  
through this screen of re-definition. the Cambridge Handbook of  
Consciousness, the standard textbook in neurological and  
consciousness research pointed this out several years ago. Before  
that neurologist and Zen master James Austin pointed out how the word  
was being used in a misleading kind of way, without any profound  
proof for this profoundly named experience. 'The phrase ‘‘pure  
consciousness’’ continues to sow confusion more than a
decade after Forman pointed to its semantic pitfalls. When someone  
employs the term today, it remains unclear whether its usage  
describes an early moment, an intermediate step, or some ultimate  
stage among the several optional varieties of consciousness. He then  
goes on to describe in detail how the word is being used by TM  
researchers to claim an exalted state, when in fact they're actual  
attaching the thought-stopper (pun intended;-)) to a very rudimentary  
state.


It looks like the tom-foolery has been exposed.

Beyond the thought-stopper is the further tendency 'if you repeat a  
lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.' Despite being  
caught at their act, I'm certain TM researchers, teachers and  
professors will still continue to use Pure Consciousness as a  
description. The fact is, at this point in the game, if they were  
forced to abandon their use of this word, as applies to TM and it's  
results, they'd have to rewrite websites and revise the entire  
literature of TM, Maharishi Vedic Science--virtually ALL of the MUM  
curriculum! It's all based on this (LOL) thought-stopper!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Richard M wrote:


That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those
who try  to skip the angas.



So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition?

Self-certified?

These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied
tradition as Yoga.

You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh?

The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda
(V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis
and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people.

The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group
of Aryan peoples.

According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of
the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had  
flourished in

central and north-west India in the 6th century BC.

Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient
Janapadas.

What's the instruction for skipping them?


You're looking at a different word Rich.

Anga refers here to the sequential steps in yoga or samadhi. in HK:  
aGga or limbs, especially of a science (e.g. yoga).


I think the sages speak quite well for themselves. I guess a better  
question is why were these facts hidden from you and other TM folks?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:
  
   As I said, we agree to disagree...
  
   Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many 
 legitimate i
   interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.
  
  
   Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
   (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
   subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred 
 to
   as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: 
 give
   me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on 
 their
   own, just give me power, NOW.
  
  
  
   Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?
  
  
  That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those 
  who try  to skip the angas.
 
 
 So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? 
 
 Self-certified?
 
 These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied
 tradition as Yoga.
 
 You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh?
 
 The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda 
 (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis 
 and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people.
 
 The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group 
 of Aryan peoples.
 
 According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of 
 the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in 
 central and north-west India in the 6th century BC.
 
 Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient 
 Janapadas.
 
 What's the instruction for skipping them?

I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)Yoga, With the 
practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state of Yoga 
grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to become 
permanent.  MMY Gita appendix under Yoga!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher states  
 of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What  
 they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed.

I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been able to 
achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.

Even if TM research merely points out TM produces states of rest comparable to 
sleep or better it is good and legitimate research bolstering the usefulness of 
TM in daily lifehowever, to suggest it proves higher states of 
consciousness without demonstrating complete cessation of the breath (and in 
some cases heart rate as well) is wishful thinking and TM spin.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 8:27 AM, BillyG. wrote:


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

Well fortunately researchers have had access to yogis in higher  
states

of consciousness, particularly over the last 16 years or so. What
they've found is there are remarkable changes indeed.


I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been  
able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.


Even if TM research merely points out TM produces states of rest  
comparable to sleep or better it is good and legitimate research  
bolstering the usefulness of TM in daily lifehowever, to  
suggest it proves higher states of consciousness without  
demonstrating complete cessation of the breath (and in some cases  
heart rate as well) is wishful thinking and TM spin.



It would be virtually impossible for them to do so without further  
instruction and guidance. But with authentic instruction, they'd be a  
ripe group for learning to do so. Perhaps it's best to think of TM  
folks as a large, untapped resource.


I only know a handful who went on after TM to independently deepen  
their studies to this level.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  
   
   On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:
   
As I said, we agree to disagree...
   
Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many 
  legitimate i
interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.
   
   
Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
(not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred 
  to
as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: 
  give
me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on 
  their
own, just give me power, NOW.
   
   
   
Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?
   
   
   That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those 
   who try  to skip the angas.
  
  
  So you're the spokesperson for the yogic tradition? 
  
  Self-certified?
  
  These skippable angas seem jolly arcane for such a well studied
  tradition as Yoga.
  
  You need to put Wikepedia right Vaj, eh?
  
  The earliest reference to Angas (???) occurs in the Atharava Veda 
  (V.22.14) where they find mention along with the Magadhas, Gandharis 
  and the Mujavatas, all apparently as a despised people.
  
  The Jain Prajnapana ranks the Angas and the Vangas in the first group 
  of Aryan peoples.
  
  According to Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya, Anga was one of 
  the sixteen great nations (solas Mahajanapadas) which had flourished in 
  central and north-west India in the 6th century BC.
  
  Anga also finds mention in the Jain Bhagvati-Sutra's list of ancient 
  Janapadas.
  
  What's the instruction for skipping them?
 
 I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)Yoga, With 
 the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**, simultaneously, the state 
 of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the eight spheres of life, eventually to 
 become permanent.  MMY Gita appendix under Yoga!


Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great 
authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a 
subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.

In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought 
stopper. 

What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 It would be virtually impossible for them to do so without further  
 instruction and guidance. But with authentic instruction, they'd be a  
 ripe group for learning to do so. Perhaps it's best to think of TM  
 folks as a large, untapped resource.
 
 I only know a handful who went on after TM to independently deepen  
 their studies to this level.

What benefits in daily life have you or the half dozen found from such deeper 
studies and authentic instruction?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:

I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) 
Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**,  
simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the  
eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent.  MMY Gita  
appendix under Yoga!




Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great
authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a
subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.

In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a  
thought stopper.


What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?



Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and  
Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does  
vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu  
yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of  
it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the  
prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for  
hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:
 
  I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs) 
  Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**,  
  simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the  
  eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent.  MMY Gita  
  appendix under Yoga!
 
 
  Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great
  authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
  thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
  into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a
  subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
  can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.
 
  In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a  
  thought stopper.
 
  What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?
 
 
 Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and  
 Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does  
 vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu  
 yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of  
 it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the  
 prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for  
 hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'


And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from centuries ago 
across probably multiple languages?

I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case for your 
view.

[FairfieldLife] My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of arguments 
popular among kids around 6:

1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.

2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash only 
has 17.

The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out much 
substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than yours, by 
association, I am (WAY) better than you.

The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it may have no 
practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still makes my thing, and thus me, 
(WAY) better than you.

Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what specific 
non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you had from:

1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition 

2) breathless samadhi

3) your favorite EEG pattern

4) practice of the agamas 

5) Mindfulness meditation

6) yagyas

7) ayur veda

8) TM

9) your choice


Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps) experienced by 
others, but rather, how have any of these things have actually and concretely 
improved your personal daily life in terms of clearer thinking, better health 
and performance, improved social behavior?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?

P.S.: The additional irony of Barry complaining
that any alternative view to that of the TM critics
is by definition a thought-stopper and therefore
Evil and Duplicitous and To Be Ignored is that the TM
critics here are *by far* the most frequent users of
thought-stoppers (Vaj being the champeen). The TMers
are far more likely to suggest nuance and ambiguity
and shades of gray; they typically attempt to inject
*balance* into the discussion (not always, granted,
just as not all criticism of TM necessarily involves
thought-stoppers).

My posts on the Dalai Lama and on Meera Nanda were
both attempts to inject a bit of balance into what
otherwise would be unrelievedly positive and
uncritical evaluations by their fans.

The Dalai Lama may be a great guy generally speaking,
but to claim that George Bush is honest and
straightforward suggests at the very least that the
DL has not been following the ins and outs of U.S.
politics and foreign relations all that closely.

Meera Nanda may have some excellent points to make
about Hindutva and its promotion of Vedic Science,
but it may be that not all her insights are slam-
dunks or all her research 100 percent accurate.

Etc., etc., etc.


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

 This is Barry's funniest post yet. And it will go
 right over the heads of most here.
 
 His *entire post* is one sweeping thought-stopper.
 
 He has achieved 100 percent self-reference.
 
 You are to dismiss immediately any point of view,
 Barry is telling you, that appears to conflict in
 any way with the views of the TM critics, because
 such points of view are obviously intended as
 thought-stoppers.
 
 Any evidence, for example, demonstrating that the
 Dalai Lama does not have perfect judgment is
 designed to make you stop having any thoughts that
 there is any good whatsoever to be found in the
 Dalai Lama. If he has any less than 100 percent
 perfect judgment, you are supposed to think that
 must mean he is All Bad.
 
 Any demonstration that anybody has a negative
 opinion of Meera Nanda's work is designed to lead
 you to believe that she is Completely Wrong About
 Everything.
 
 When you encounter such scurrilous thought-stoppers,
 therefore, you must Stop Thinking about them. You
 cannot allow any negative thoughts to enter your
 mind and pollute your positive views. And of
 course you must think of those who attempt to
 introduce such negative thoughts into your mind as
 people who themselves Do Not Think and don't want
 you to think either.
 
 There is no such thing as ambiguity or ambivalence
 or nuance in Barry's World, so anyone who attempts
 to suggest that all is not black or white is
 obviously No Good At All.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to 
  a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone
  she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a 
  Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai 
  Lama had some positive things to say about former 
  president George W. Bush.
  
  IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to 
  interject a thought stopper into the conversation.
  The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something
  good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad,
  then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either.
  
  This just days after doing exactly the same thing 
  when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying
  that in her opinion all the quantum consciousness
  nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person 
  posted what was clearly intended to be another thought
  stopper by pointing to a few anonymous reviews of
  the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds
  were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the
  author, and think negatively about her.
  
  Add to this a long history of this poster and other
  posters on this forum utilizing thought stoppers 
  to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a
  liar and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to
  stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos-
  sibly having any positive qualities and instead
  think of them as something less than human. Call 
  someone a predator and again the readers are sup-
  posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused
  person off.
  
  In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who
  use such thought stoppers are demonstrating, more
  than anything else, how quickly their own thought
  processes stop working.
  
  They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They
  cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush
  and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush
  is bad, he is ALL bad; there can be no possible
  positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual-
  ities are not *possible* because he's bad, and
  if a person is bad, he's ALL bad. That's what
  they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone
  like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find
  something in him

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote:


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



On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:


I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)
Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**,
simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the
eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent.  MMY Gita
appendix under Yoga!



Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great
authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a
subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.

In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a
thought stopper.

What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?



Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and
Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does
vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu
yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of
it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the
prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for
hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'



And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from  
centuries ago across probably multiple languages?


I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case  
for your view.


Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's  
worthless to do such a thing here any longer.


 Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be  
surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of  
basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I  
base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by  
a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the  
same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sexy Time

2009-05-06 Thread Hugo

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


 Turq's on record here naysaying just about every sort of moral; does anyone 
 here think he'd pass up hitting on some girl who's, say, distraught, or, way 
 drunk, or, otherwise momentarily vulnerable? 

Yes I'm certain he would pass up hitting on the drunk or distraught.
Because that is abuse and what Turq is talking about is fun between
consenting adults. You have to have no respect at all for women to take 
advantage like this (it's illegal now too)

Seems to me like there is a lot of sexism in your post Edg, you 
seem to be assuming that women aren't capable of deciding for themselves who 
they want to spend the night with and that they 
are easily persuaded otherwise. The world has moved on from this
50's morality of dumb broads waiting for men to flex their biceps
or open their laptops.


 Fuck, walk into any Starbucks and look at the guys with their laptops.  
 Fucking look at them will ya?  Who the fuck goes to a crowded coffee shop to 
 do serious work?  These guys are looking for women. Do it.  Go there and 
 simply look at what the guys do with their eyes. 

Guys looking at girls? I'm shocked, truly. How will the 
world survive this outrage.

PS I use a copy of The Guardian, does it work better with a 
laptop?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?

I thought stopping thought was a good thing. or at a minimum a step towards a 
good thing. So you are complaining that some have developed a mahavakaya that 
can instantly stop thoughts? Wouldn't that actually be a good thing? :) 


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

 Recently, following up like a mindless TM robot to 
 a mention of the name of the Dalai Lama by someone
 she doesn't like, someone posted a quote from a 
 Google Group. The quote indicated that the Dalai 
 Lama had some positive things to say about former 
 president George W. Bush.
 
 IMO, the person's intent in posting this was to 
 interject a thought stopper into the conversation.
 The idea was that if the Dalai Lama said something
 good about someone we all know to be thoroughly bad,
 then the Dalai Lama couldn't possibly be good, either.
 
 This just days after doing exactly the same thing 
 when the name of a scientist who wrote a book saying
 that in her opinion all the quantum consciousness
 nonsense was in fact nonsense came up. The same person 
 posted what was clearly intended to be another thought
 stopper by pointing to a few anonymous reviews of
 the book on Amazon. Again, people with feeble minds
 were supposed to *stop thinking* positively about the
 author, and think negatively about her.
 
 Add to this a long history of this poster and other
 posters on this forum utilizing thought stoppers 
 to demonize people they don't like. Call someone a
 liar and (in their minds) everyone is supposed to
 stop thinking of the person accused of lying as pos-
 sibly having any positive qualities and instead
 think of them as something less than human. Call 
 someone a predator and again the readers are sup-
 posed to *stop thinking* and just write the accused
 person off.
 
 In this post what I'm suggesting is that those who
 use such thought stoppers are demonstrating, more
 than anything else, how quickly their own thought
 processes stop working.
 
 They lack breadth of vision and compassion. They
 cannot *conceive* of a person being George W. Bush
 and yet having positive qualities. To them, if Bush
 is bad, he is ALL bad; there can be no possible
 positive qualities in the man. Those positive qual-
 ities are not *possible* because he's bad, and
 if a person is bad, he's ALL bad. That's what
 they would have you believe. Therefore, if someone
 like the Dalai Lama is able to meet Bush and find
 something in him to praise -- anything -- then *he*
 must be linked to the bad Bush and be bad 
 himself. 
 
 Same with calling someone a liar. Science tells
 us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies 
 a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves
 and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to
 themselves. Only an idiot would claim, I never 
 lie. But some idiots not only claim this, they
 attempt to use the epithet Liar! as a thought
 stopper. Again, the implication is that by calling
 someone a liar, you can make people think of the
 person you are attempting to demonize as ALL liar. 
 If they're a liar, the rationale of the thought-
 stopper-hurler goes, they are *complete* liars. 
 They cannot possibly have any other qualities or 
 attributes. *Stop thinking* of this person as 
 human; only think of them as a 'liar.'
 
 Same with the epithet predator. It conjures up
 images of child molesters and worse. And it is
 *supposed* to. Hurling the term predator at some-
 one you don't like is designed to get people to
 *stop thinking* about that person as human. They
 are supposed to think of them the way YOU do, as
 one-dimensional, as ONLY a predator.
 
 Same with invoking Kali Yuga as a catch-all
 excuse for why things suck. The idea is that one
 can throw that term out and people will stop think-
 ing that there is anything they can possibly *do*
 to *change* how things suck. You *can't* really
 change it, goes the thought stopper rationale,
 because it's Kali Yuga. Things *always* suck in
 Kali Yuga.
 
 I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of 
 people on this forum FALL for thought stoppers.
 The TM movement was not long on compassion. It
 never taught its followers that a person could be
 partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was 
 always the clear-cut It's only the Pandavas and 
 the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints
 scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no 
 middle ground. So if a person is characterized as 
 black, they are ALL black. 
 
 As a result IMO, many people who have come out of 
 such an environment are easy prey for those who use 
 thought stoppers as a tool of debate. And the people 
 who *rely* on thought stoppers know this, and use 
 the thought stoppers as often as they possibly can. 
 They know that the audience they are talking to
 has been taught to *despise* shades of gray and
 the possibility of feeling compassion for someone
 who has been accused of being bad. They know that
 many people coming out of a TM environment will

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
 
  On May 6, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Richard M wrote:
 
  I think Vaj meant the 'angas' in Patanjali's Ashtanga (8 limbs)
  Yoga, With the practice of ALL of these limbs, **or means**,
  simultaneously, the state of Yoga grows simultaneously in all the
  eight spheres of life, eventually to become permanent.  MMY Gita
  appendix under Yoga!
 
 
  Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great
  authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
  thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
  into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a
  subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
  can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.
 
  In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a
  thought stopper.
 
  What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?
 
 
  Just to be clearer for you Rich, these angas exist in BOTH Hindu and
  Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does
  vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu
  yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of
  it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the
  prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for
  hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'
 
 
  And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from  
  centuries ago across probably multiple languages?
 
  I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case  
  for your view.
 
 Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's  
 worthless to do such a thing here any longer.
 
   Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be  
 surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of  
 basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I  
 base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by  
 a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the  
 same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.


Fair enough.

But you said some-such to someone (SpareEgg I think) as You're 
position is wrong because you believe/do 'P' and 
*THE YOGA TRADITION* says/do 'Q'.

Which sounds ever-so authoritative.

If you had said Q is better based on my experience and 
according to my teacher and his/her tradition, you would not have
rattled my chains. 

But then you would not have made much of a point either.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote:
 
  Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does
  vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu
  yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of
  it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the
  prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for
  hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'
 
 
  And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from  
  centuries ago across probably multiple languages?
 
  I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case  
  for your view.
 
 Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's  
 worthless to do such a thing here any longer.
 
   Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be  
 surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of  
 basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I  
 base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by  
 a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the  
 same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.

Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments 
the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 

3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  
  On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote:
  
   Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does
   vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu
   yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the mechanics of
   it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the
   prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for
   hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'
  
  
   And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from  
   centuries ago across probably multiple languages?
  
   I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case  
   for your view.
  
  Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's  
  worthless to do such a thing here any longer.
  
Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be  
  surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of  
  basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I  
  base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by  
  a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the  
  same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.
 
 Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments 
 the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 
 
 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)


;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
  Don't assume I was interested in going into any
  lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing
  here any longer.
  
  Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it
  should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive
  but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic
  teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two
  first. I base my observations on my own direct
  experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who
  was part of a line that had been replicating the  
  same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.
 
 Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of
 6 year old's arguments the to questions about their
 claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 
 
 3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)

That wouldn't be a gasp thought-stopper, would it?

cackle

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 snip
   Don't assume I was interested in going into any
   lengthy defense. It's worthless to do such a thing
   here any longer.
   
   Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it
   should hardly be surprising. Not to sound offensive
   but if you're that ignorant of basic yogic
   teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two
   first. I base my observations on my own direct
   experience and being taught by a lineal teacher who
   was part of a line that had been replicating the  
   same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.
  
  Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of
  6 year old's arguments the to questions about their
  claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) 
  
  3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)
 
 That wouldn't be a gasp thought-stopper, would it?
 
 cackle


Indeed it is. As soon a Vaj said the mahavakaya, all thoughts stopped, I 
obtained the breathless samadhi, the heavens opened up, I saw the universe in 
my dogs mouth, and my alpha waves were way cool.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote:


And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from
centuries ago across probably multiple languages?

I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case
for your view.


Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's
worthless to do such a thing here any longer.

  Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be
surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of
basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I
base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by
a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the
same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.



Fair enough.

But you said some-such to someone (SpareEgg I think) as You're
position is wrong because you believe/do 'P' and
*THE YOGA TRADITION* says/do 'Q'.

Which sounds ever-so authoritative.

If you had said Q is better based on my experience and
according to my teacher and his/her tradition, you would not have
rattled my chains.

But then you would not have made much of a point either.



Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is  
claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up  
against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that  
were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the  
deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not  
mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY  
restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The  
fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down  
and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing  
that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is  
interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give  
rise to.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 10:14 AM, grate.swan wrote:


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



On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote:


Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does
vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu
yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the  
mechanics of
it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who  
skip the
prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate  
for

hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.'



And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from
centuries ago across probably multiple languages?

I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case
for your view.


Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's
worthless to do such a thing here any longer.

  Really this is a kind of yoga 101 revelation, it should hardly be
surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of
basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I
base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by
a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the
same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition.


Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's  
arguments the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and  
better gizmos)


3) You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)



LOL, Is this where you throw yourself on the ground  and have a tantrum?

I'll continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's  
not my job to educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!

Re: [FairfieldLife] My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!



On May 6, 2009, at 9:48 AM, grate.swan wrote:

There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of  
arguments popular among kids around 6:


1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.

2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of  
trash only has 17.


The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out  
much substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than  
yours, by association, I am (WAY) better than you.


The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it  
may have no practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still  
makes my thing, and thus me, (WAY) better than you.


Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what  
specific non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you  
had from:


1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition

2) breathless samadhi

3) your favorite EEG pattern

4) practice of the agamas

5) Mindfulness meditation

6) yagyas

7) ayur veda

8) TM

9) your choice


Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps)  
experienced by others, but rather, how have any of these things  
have actually and concretely improved your personal daily life in  
terms of clearer thinking, better health and performance, improved  
social behavior?



Wow. You really seemed to have actually missed the points being made  
on a lot of topics! Impressive!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote:
 
 
 
 Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is  
 claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up  
 against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that  
 were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the  
 deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not  
 mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY  
 restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The  
 fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down  
 and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing  
 that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is  
 interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give  
 rise to.

So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of comparative, 
historical view of meditation methods. Interesting, but of no value to me in 
any practical sense. 

The one possible practical point your raised is This actually clarifies a lot 
of the   deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, 

I would think each individual is best to determine what is worthwhile for them 
-- and perhaps don't need you to tell them, at a distance. 
This is smelling like another version of the White Knight syndrome -- a need to 
save feeble, non-thinking, immature, and unworldly practicioners / women from 
caddish, brutish, practices / men.  

Thanks again another great point for the list.

4) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducatioed, imature, feeble) to figure out 
whats GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 9:48 AM, grate.swan wrote:
 
  There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of  
  arguments popular among kids around 6:
 
  1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
 
  2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of  
  trash only has 17.
 
  The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out  
  much substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than  
  yours, by association, I am (WAY) better than you.
 
  The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it  
  may have no practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still  
  makes my thing, and thus me, (WAY) better than you.
 
  Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what  
  specific non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you  
  had from:
 
  1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition
 
  2) breathless samadhi
 
  3) your favorite EEG pattern
 
  4) practice of the agamas
 
  5) Mindfulness meditation
 
  6) yagyas
 
  7) ayur veda
 
  8) TM
 
  9) your choice
 
 
  Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps)  
  experienced by others, but rather, how have any of these things  
  have actually and concretely improved your personal daily life in  
  terms of clearer thinking, better health and performance, improved  
  social behavior?
 
 
 Wow. You really seemed to have actually missed the points being made  
 on a lot of topics! Impressive!


You already covered that. 

Its the 6-years old defense #3 You are so stupid

Any substance pending?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 10:38 AM, grate.swan wrote:


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



On May 6, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Richard M wrote:



Well I think the crux of the argument here would be that TM is
claiming to be from this tradition, yet time after time it comes up
against that tradition in terms of errors, typically on things that
were simply never told to us. This actually clarifies a lot of the
deadends people will run into, so it is something worthwhile, not
mere specious intellectualizing. Now some will claim that MMY
restored the tradition to some original, better working state. The
fact is, the Patanjali/yogic tradition(s) continues to be passed down
and replicated like it always has been. There's was never any thing
that needed to be restored or fixed. It works just fine. But it is
interesting to see where the departures are and the issues they give
rise to.

So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of  
comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting,  
but of no value to me in any practical sense.


If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less  
value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are  
confronted with others with more experience. They're often very  
reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the  
tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is  
quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to  
find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and  
why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able  
to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It  
was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was  
a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the  
same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of  
exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was  
amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this.







The one possible practical point your raised is This actually  
clarifies a lot of the   deadends people will run into, so it is  
something worthwhile,


I would think each individual is best to determine what is  
worthwhile for them -- and perhaps don't need you to tell them, at  
a distance.
This is smelling like another version of the White Knight syndrome  
-- a need to save feeble, non-thinking, immature, and unworldly  
practicioners / women from caddish, brutish, practices / men.


Hmmm. Bizarre.



Thanks again another great point for the list.

4) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducatioed, imature, feeble) to  
figure out whats GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is  
bow here!


How childish. Whatever.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!



On May 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, grate.swan wrote:



Wow. You really seemed to have actually missed the points being made
on a lot of topics! Impressive!



You already covered that.

Its the 6-years old defense #3 You are so stupid

Any substance pending?


For you? I doubt it!

[FairfieldLife] Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old: Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

Thanks to some recent feedback from posters, the list has grown:

Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old:

1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.

2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash only 
has 17.

3) a You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)

4) You are too lazy and inezperienced to talk to me. The nerve of you! ('ll 
continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's not my job to 
educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!

5) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducated, imature, feeble) to figure out whats
GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!

I was thinking to append these to the bottom of posts, and then just cite 
numbers for each such defense used among posters using these age old 
techniques, passed down from a stellar lineage. 

FFL is such a rich environment for research into Classic Defenses of the 
Six-Year Old.

Like the prison / joke joke -- where jokes are numbered, and yelled out (5) 
-- having been told so many times.



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

 There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of arguments 
 popular among kids around 6:
 
 1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
 
 2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash only 
 has 17.
 
 The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out much 
 substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than yours, by 
 association, I am (WAY) better than you.
 
 The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it may have no 
 practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still makes my thing, and thus 
 me, (WAY) better than you.
 
 Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what specific 
 non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you had from:
 
 1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition 
 
 2) breathless samadhi
 
 3) your favorite EEG pattern
 
 4) practice of the agamas 
 
 5) Mindfulness meditation
 
 6) yagyas
 
 7) ayur veda
 
 8) TM
 
 9) your choice
 
 
 Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps) experienced by 
 others, but rather, how have any of these things have actually and concretely 
 improved your personal daily life in terms of clearer thinking, better health 
 and performance, improved social behavior?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
  So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of  
  comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting,  
  but of no value to me in any practical sense.
 
 If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less  
 value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are  
 confronted with others with more experience. They're often very  
 reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the  
 tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is  
 quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to  
 find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and  
 why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able  
 to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It  
 was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was  
 a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the  
 same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of  
 exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was  
 amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this.
 

So you have gained some intellectual satisfaction. Still, you continue to 
divert from the original question -- 

What practical benefits in daily life   in the realm of improved thinking and 
cognitive function, improved body / health function, improved social behavior?

Its your perogative to punt -- but I assume that would men you have no such 
benefits and diversion and deflection are the best that you can come up with.

[FairfieldLife] Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old: Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

You forgot:

6) You refuse to argue with me, so there is 
something wrong with you.


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

 Thanks to some recent feedback from posters, the list has grown:
 
 Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old:
 
 1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
 
 2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash only 
 has 17.
 
 3) a You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)
 
 4) You are too lazy and inezperienced to talk to me. The nerve of you! ('ll 
 continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's not my job to 
 educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!
 
 5) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducated, imature, feeble) to figure out whats
 GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!
 
 I was thinking to append these to the bottom of posts, and then just cite 
 numbers for each such defense used among posters using these age old 
 techniques, passed down from a stellar lineage. 
 
 FFL is such a rich environment for research into Classic Defenses of the 
 Six-Year Old.
 
 Like the prison / joke joke -- where jokes are numbered, and yelled out (5) 
 -- having been told so many times.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of arguments 
  popular among kids around 6:
  
  1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
  
  2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash 
  only has 17.
  
  The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out much 
  substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than yours, by 
  association, I am (WAY) better than you.
  
  The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it may have 
  no practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still makes my thing, and 
  thus me, (WAY) better than you.
  
  Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what specific 
  non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you had from:
  
  1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition 
  
  2) breathless samadhi
  
  3) your favorite EEG pattern
  
  4) practice of the agamas 
  
  5) Mindfulness meditation
  
  6) yagyas
  
  7) ayur veda
  
  8) TM
  
  9) your choice
  
  
  Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps) experienced 
  by others, but rather, how have any of these things have actually and 
  concretely improved your personal daily life in terms of clearer thinking, 
  better health and performance, improved social behavior?

[FairfieldLife] Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old: Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!


The list grows by leaps and bounds.

 Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old:
 
 1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
 
 2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash only 
has 17.
 
 3) a You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)
 
 4) You are too lazy and inexperienced to talk to me. The nerve of you! ('ll 
continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's not my job to 
educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!
 
 5) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducated, imature, feeble) to figure out whats 
GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is now here!

6) How childish. Whatever.

7) Hmmm. Bizarre.
 
8) It was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you)

9) For you? I doubt it!


 
 I was thinking to append these to the bottom of posts, and then just cite 
 numbers for each such defense used among posters using these age old 
 techniques, passed down from a stellar lineage. 
 
 FFL is such a rich environment for research into Classic Defenses of the 
 Six-Year Old.
 
 Like the prison / joke joke -- where jokes are numbered, and yelled out (5) 
 -- having been told so many times.
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of arguments 
  popular among kids around 6:
  
  1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
  
  2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash 
  only has 17.
  
  The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out much 
  substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than yours, by 
  association, I am (WAY) better than you.
  
  The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it may have 
  no practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still makes my thing, and 
  thus me, (WAY) better than you.
  
  Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what specific 
  non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you had from:
  
  1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition 
  
  2) breathless samadhi
  
  3) your favorite EEG pattern
  
  4) practice of the agamas 
  
  5) Mindfulness meditation
  
  6) yagyas
  
  7) ayur veda
  
  8) TM
  
  9) your choice
  
  
  Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps) experienced 
  by others, but rather, how have any of these things have actually and 
  concretely improved your personal daily life in terms of clearer thinking, 
  better health and performance, improved social behavior?

[FairfieldLife] Quote from Guru Dev

2009-05-06 Thread Rick Archer

'One can become a  mahatma wherever one lives. No one becomes a mahatma by
simply wearing ochre  clothing or by applying some marks to the forehead.
Dress and other externals  will not lead to the ultimate good, whereas faith
will certainly lead to it.  The state of a mahatma is determined by the
state of mind. So stay wherever  you are, but change the direction of your
mind. Think less about samsara and  think more about Paramatma.
 
Nowadays people think a  great deal about things they should not waste their
time on. One should  primarily contemplate Paramatma; instead, people
contemplate worldly objects.  That is why they are unable to experience
peace and happiness. If you apply  your vital breath to worldly activities
and enjoyment of the senses, then your  lungs are like the bellows of a
blacksmith. Hence take care of your vital  breath and apply yourself to
Paramatma. First generate faith. You already have  sufficient faith in
money. That is why you are able to think about it. When  you have faith in
Paramatma, then you will start contemplating Him.
 
You must realize that  money and all the objects of samsara will remain
here, while you have to carry  out your future journey alone. Prepare for
that future journey at this very  moment. Increase your faith in higher
goals, and increase your love for that  ever-blissful Paramatma. Show
superficial interest in the things of the world,  which will always remain
here, and place primary faith in the ultimate goal,  which will remain with
you. Once you discover that a tantalizing heap of money  was actually
created by a magician, the temptation to take it will wither, and  you will
no longer covet it. Like the magician's money, all the objects and
relationships of samsara are transient. Therefore, carry out all daily
affairs  according to social expectations, but do not reserve a place for
these things  in your mind. Keep your mind free for the imperishable
Paramatma, whose very  essence is bliss. Always keep Bhagavan in your mind
and never transgress the  bounds of propriety - this is what it means to be
a mahatma.'

[FairfieldLife] Beyond Man

2009-05-06 Thread do.rflex



In one of the upper regions of the astral world not in the region of pure mind 
but near it I met a man last night who passed to and fro with his head bowed in 
thought.

What troubles you, friend? I asked, as I stood before him. He paused in his 
restless walk and gazed at me.

Who are you? he enquired, listlessly. 

I am a Judge, I answered.

His eyes brightened with interest. You must have come at the call of my 
thought, he said, for I have need of a Judge.

On whom do you wish me to pass judgment? I asked, half smiling at his strange 
words.

I would like you to pass judgment on me.

And your offence?

My offence if it is an offence, and on that you shall give your opinion is 
having led a nation to its undoing.

With malice aforethought? I queried.

With malice, perhaps, he answered, but not in the sense of your question. I 
never believed they had spirit enough to believe me.

You pique my curiosity, I said. Who are 'they?' and in what did they believe 
you?

They are the Germans, he answered, the Germans whom I despised, and they 
believed my theory that man becomes supreme by doing what he wills to do.

And the devil take the hindmost?

Yes, and the devil take the hindmost. He bent on me his sombre eyes, and I 
waited for his words.
What a folk those Germans are! he said. Whatever they do, they do too 
thoroughly. One cannot trust them with a great truth.

They do seem to have systematized you into the ground, I answered.

I wanted to make them gods, he complained, and I have made them devils.

God only can make gods, I said. Perhaps you were too ambitious.

Humph! Perhaps I was too confiding.

Hermeticism is safer, I suggested. You told them far too much.

Or far too little, maybe.

In how many volumes?

Go ask the librarians. Not the foreign ones they bind my works in packages of 
salable size.

And how can I help you? I asked.

Judge me.

While you prosecute and defend yourself?

Who else is fit, either to prosecute or defend me?

Go on with the prosecution.

I have corrupted a whole people, and led them to their ruin.

Elaborate the charge.

I thought to remedy their spinelessness, and following me with characteristic 
thoroughness, they have become all spine; they have neither heart nor bowels.

Continue, I said.

I preached Beyond Man. They have practised below man.

So far, I interrupted, you have prosecuted them, not yourself.

How can I charge myself without charging them? he demanded.

Then I will step down from the bench, I said, and talk with you man to man.

I am glad you didn't say soul to soul.

Oh, man is good enough for me! As I said before, you were too ambitious.

Yes, too ambitious for man, too sick of man, too much in love with what man 
might
become!

We have come already to the defence, I said.

The smell of the court is still about you, he growled.

You asked me to be your judge.

Yes, that is true.

I am sorry for you, I said.

He smiled a sad and searching smile. You seem to have both heart and bowels, 
he observed.

And you have been too long alone, I replied. You have lost your gift of 
words. Shall I prosecute, defend and judge you? You can interrupt me whenever 
you like.

Go on, he assented.

You were born under a restless star, I began. You followed heroes; they 
disappointed you by being men. Then you made self your hero, and that 
disappointed you most of all.

You seem to know all about me.

That is the glory and the shame of your greatness, that one knows all about 
you.

I deny it! You do not know all about me.

What is it that we do not know?

You do not know how I loved man!

You spoke of him with contempt.

That he might rise to Beyond Man.

Oh! And drown the children on the Lusitania, and hack his way through Belgium, 
and turn every friend against him, and be the curse of the planet!

He raised an arresting finger. You are speaking of the Germans, he said.

They are the only ones who have followed your philosophy to its logical 
conclusion.

And you taunt me with that?

I taunt you with nothing. I am stating facts. It was you who taunted them to 
their undoing.

I only preached Beyond Man.

So far beyond man that man misunderstood you.

Is that my fault?

Whose else?

Not theirs?

Not altogether theirs. You hated too much. You taught them to hate man.

I taught them to hate all that was not Beyond Man.

But man is not Beyond Man, and so you taught them to hate man.

But they themselves are not Beyond Man!

They aspire to be. You taught them to aspire to be. They believed themselves 
Beyond Man, beyond good and evil. You taught chemistry to babes and sucklings, 
and they have blown up the nursery of the world.

I wanted only to teach them.

You should have begun with the a-b-c.

And what do you think is the a-b-c of Beyond Man? he asked.

The a is love, the b is humility, the c is truth, I answered.

And why did I not teach them love, humility and truth?

You knew not love, humility and truth.

I knew not love?

You knew not love.

And I knew not

[FairfieldLife] Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old: Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

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

 You forgot:
 
 6) You refuse to argue with me, so there is 
 something wrong with you.

Point well taken.  (and I assume that is directed at me -- though it has 
multiple applications). There is a line between asking someone to substantiate 
a claim and provoking argument. We may disagree where that line is drawn. 

However, there is  so much fluff and unsubstainted arguments in some posts, its 
clarifying for me to look through the weeds to see if there is any substance. 
And to note the various diversionary tactics used not to address the actual 
query about their claims. I mean, such tactics may come in handy -- out in the 
real world. Some here have cognized some fantastic such tactics -- I am a 
student at the feet of masters.

Its not as if most deflectors have not the time -- they respond copiously. Its 
that some will wave their arms for hours saying why they will not answer a 
reasonable question about their claims.  If anything, I may have fallen into 
the dark area you so well enjoy in prodding on ridiculousness.

That someone will spend a lot of time laying out claims, but spend no time 
addressing potential flaws in such when queried, but much time in deflection, 
essentially reveals much -- that there (is probably) little substance to their 
claims -- and hand waving is all that can be done.  

However, if people feel that I am provoking arguments -- that is not my purpose 
-- though I can see that POV.



 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Thanks to some recent feedback from posters, the list has grown:
  
  Classic Defenses of the Six-Year Old:
  
  1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
  
  2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash 
  only has 17.
  
  3) a You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)
  
  4) You are too lazy and inezperienced to talk to me. The nerve of you! ('ll 
  continue to interject when I want, as I feel appropriate. It's not my job 
  to educate you or make up for your own lack of experience!
  
  5) You are too (stupid, lazy, uneducated, imature, feeble) to figure out 
  whats
  GOOD for YOU. Stand aside knave, Mighty mouse is bow here!
  
  I was thinking to append these to the bottom of posts, and then just cite 
  numbers for each such defense used among posters using these age old 
  techniques, passed down from a stellar lineage. 
  
  FFL is such a rich environment for research into Classic Defenses of the 
  Six-Year Old.
  
  Like the prison / joke joke -- where jokes are numbered, and yelled out 
  (5) -- having been told so many times.
  
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote:
  
   There appears to be a huge amount of energy spent on two types of 
   arguments popular among kids around 6:
   
   1) My Dad is (WAY) Stronger than your Dad.
   
   2) My Swiss army knife has 23 gizmos, your shitty little pieces of trash 
   only has 17.
   
   The first is acclaim by association. If I cam argue (even with out much 
   substance) that my dad (or tradition/path) is better than yours, by 
   association, I am (WAY) better than you.
   
   The second is the claim to new and dazzling stuff that while it may 
   have no practical value, and perhaps is rarely used, still makes my 
   thing, and thus me, (WAY) better than you.
   
   Aside from having allegedly way better Dad's and gizmos, what specific 
   non-abstract, non-subjective personal benefits have you had from:
   
   1) the authentic knowledge from THE yogic tradition 
   
   2) breathless samadhi
   
   3) your favorite EEG pattern
   
   4) practice of the agamas 
   
   5) Mindfulness meditation
   
   6) yagyas
   
   7) ayur veda
   
   8) TM
   
   9) your choice
   
   
   Not what books or teachers tell you are the benefits (perhaps) 
   experienced by others, but rather, how have any of these things have 
   actually and concretely improved your personal daily life in terms of 
   clearer thinking, better health and performance, improved social behavior?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 11:03 AM, grate.swan wrote:


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





So your argument appears primarily to be a scholarly a sort of
comparative, historical view of meditation methods. Interesting,
but of no value to me in any practical sense.


If it was a scholarly comparative, etc. view, it might have less
value. It's interesting I see this same comment when TM folks are
confronted with others with more experience. They're often very
reactive for some reason to people experientially familiar with the
tradition(s) they claim to be from. I do think the scholarly POV is
quite worthwhile, but I also, for example have found it valuable to
find out what that gap was in my awareness during my TM practice and
why my breath stopped. It was even more interesting to then be able
to be guided beyond that in an authentic way to the next steps. It
was amazing to me (but obviously much less so to you) that there was
a record and tradition of others who had not only had experienced the
same thing, but that they had been repeating this simple process of
exploration and unfoldment for so long, so successfully. It was
amazing that they had a vocabulary for all this.



So you have gained some intellectual satisfaction. Still, you  
continue to divert from the original question --


No, again you try to misrepresent what I'm saying. It's not that  
important, it's the experiential understanding satisfaction that's  
really satisfying. It's yours. It can be shared. The intellectual  
understanding, the inseparable relative aspect, is the means to share.


What practical benefits in daily life   in the realm of improved  
thinking and cognitive function, improved body / health function,  
improved social behavior?


Yes, of course, these are helpful.



Its your perogative to punt -- but I assume that would men you have  
no such benefits and diversion and deflection are the best that you  
can come up with.


No, I don't really thinks it's helpful to brag these kind of things.  
It's sufficient to say 'yes, many of the things you've heard are  
true.' The more wood the more fire. Your wood and your fire will be  
different from mine, so why bother talking about my fire? Negative  
energy can transform into wisdom and insight. Negative emotions can  
diminish, yes, it's true. Virtue can blossom and have an impact in  
your way in the world. Your role as a compassionate human being can  
expand your role in the world, yes this can and does happen. Pass it  
on as best you can.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote:
 Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great 
 authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
 thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
 into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a 
 subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
 can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.
 
 In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a thought 
 stopper. 
 
 What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?

Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of Yoga. 

MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you know?), 
unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu of Religion', a 
big mistake IMO.

 Ritual and the dogmatic aspects of religion are certainly *necessary*, 
because for the soul to exist so must the body. MMY SOB Religion

The rituals of the various religions represent the body, and the practice of 
directly experiencing Being represents the spirit.  *Both* are necessary and 
should go hand in hand. One will not survive without the other.  MMY SOB 
Religion page 256

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

2009-05-06 Thread dhamiltony2k5

Dear Vaj,  I appreciate your beef with the research but seems you're crossing a 
line of denigration here.  Is one level to dismiss their research, is another 
to be a complete TM-denier.  Is kind of like that thinking of holocaust 
deniers.  Such haters, they'll deny anything about the holocaust, like Anne 
Frank never could have happened.

You deny TM with the (some) research.   You deny and you take away their 
experience too just dismissing it.   There is something not honest in going 
that far against a whole people.  Whoa.  Is not really yours to do.

With Best Regards,
-Doug in FF  



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

 
 
  Such states are easily demonstrable by methods known for thousands of
  years. So if the state is legit., it would be relatively easy to  
  know,
  even without a lot of fancy science. What I've found is TMers  
  learn to
  talk and think in flowery language as a part of the TM mythos and  
  that
  ends up having little basis in reality, although they're quite
  convinced what they're experiencing is something remarkable.
 
  Remarkable experiences require remarkable proof. So far no proof...
 
 


 
 A word is a word. An experience is an experience. Both are different.
 
 - S. Shigematsu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
  Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great 
  authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
  thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
  into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a 
  subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
  can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.
  
  In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a 
thought stopper. 
  
  What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?
 
 Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of 
Yoga. 
 

I think that's like saying THE Christian tradition is the Bible. 
That's obviosly true- but there are many alternative traditions of 
interpreting the Bible, as we all know.

 MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you 
know?), unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu 
of Religion', a big mistake IMO.
 

Yes I know you're hot on this Billy. And I sometimes wonder if you may 
be on to something. However I can't quite see how MMY defaulted limb 
3, for example (posture/asanas) to religion!

Interestingly, my 'Concordance' does not have an entry for angas. 

MMY seems to say that ANY limb will do (not just dhyana/meditation). 
All roads lead to Rome, but you don't need to toil on all of them:

A close scrutiny of Patanjali's exposition of Yoga reveals that the 
actual process of attaining the state of Yoga belongs not only to 
dhyana, or meditation...but to all the other limbs of his eightfold 
Yogathese different limbs have been mistakenly regarded as 
different steps...whereas in truth each limb is designed to create the 
state of Yoga in the sphere of life to which it relates (BG p.486).

  Ritual and the dogmatic aspects of religion are certainly 
*necessary*, because for the soul to exist so must the body. MMY SOB 
Religion
 
 The rituals of the various religions represent the body, and the 
practice of directly experiencing Being represents the spirit.  *Both* 
are necessary and should go hand in hand. One will not survive without 
the other.  MMY SOB Religion page 256

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi on Immortality of the body.

About immortality on the physical level, I happened to mention some teaching 
in the Gita about a cessation of aging process and that I narrated on the level 
of your experience during meditation.

When your thoughts become finer and finer, when the mind experiences finer 
realms of thought during meditation, then the metabolism is reduced, as the 
metabolism is reduced the mind becomes finer and finer and the metabolism 
becomes further reduced, the mind transcends and gets to that state of TC.  
Simultaneously the body, the mind, the entire functioning of the inner 
machinery, ALL METABOLIC RATE COMES TO ZERO. (Caps by me)

Has TM research demonstrated this???

When this happens the physical structure of the nervous system comes to a 
state where it knows no action. It knows no action and without action it 
remains lively, yet without activity. This is that state where it has no decay.

Decay comes, physical decay comes through activity. Cessation of activity 
results in cessation of the decaying process. As long as we can be in that 
state, the process of decay ceases to be. (Read Babaji anybody?) A very simple, 
very direct technique of attaining that state of life where neithrer the mental 
plane decays nor the physical plane decays; mental and physical planes come to 
the level of the spiritual plane wheich has eternal life and knows no change.  
MMY The Vedas page five.

Note: Very few, if any, TM'ers or any meditators can demonstrate this state of 
'zero metabolic rate', it is a very high state of development. Hence very few 
TM'ers actually transcend to Transcendental Consciousness, most transcend a 
little and that is reflected in the scientific research to date. It takes years 
and years of practice to achieve conscious transcending to Absolute Being, come 
on, get real!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost1uk@ wrote:
   Well - may well be so. But my point is that to assert with great 
   authority that The Yogic Tradition asserts such and such of these
   thingies is a con (i.e. a claim to some privileged *insight*
   into the tradition). After all, if these angas are too arcane a 
   subject for Wikipedia, it is hardly sensible to imply that there
   can be no ambiguity of interpretation hanging over them.
   
   In other words it is an instance, to go by flavour of the day, of a 
 thought stopper. 
   
   What, when you think about, IS The Yoga Tradition (singular)?
  
  Probably Maharishi Patanjali, considered by some to be the Father of 
 Yoga. 
  
 
 I think that's like saying THE Christian tradition is the Bible. 
 That's obviosly true- but there are many alternative traditions of 
 interpreting the Bible, as we all know.
 
  MMY defaulted the other limbs to one's own Religion (or didn't you 
 know?), unfortunately for many, if not most, TM has become 'TM in lieu 
 of Religion', a big mistake IMO.
  
 
 Yes I know you're hot on this Billy. And I sometimes wonder if you may 
 be on to something. However I can't quite see how MMY defaulted limb 
 3, for example (posture/asanas) to religion!

Sorry, didn't mean to include that one, he of course teaches that, I have a bad 
knee to prove it!  :-)
 
 Interestingly, my 'Concordance' does not have an entry for angas. 

Ashtanga is a sanskrit compound word made by joining together ashta (aSTa) or 
eight with anga (aMga) or limb. Wiki

 
 MMY seems to say that ANY limb will do (not just dhyana/meditation). 
 All roads lead to Rome, but you don't need to toil on all of them:

True, he clearly mentions in one lecture in particular that TM is all you need, 
but I think what he 'wrote' is more authoritative to me, than what he said in 
front of thousands of people promoting TM.

 A close scrutiny of Patanjali's exposition of Yoga reveals that the 
 actual process of attaining the state of Yoga belongs not only to 
 dhyana, or meditation...but to all the other limbs of his eightfold 
 Yogathese different limbs have been mistakenly regarded as 
 different steps...whereas in truth each limb is designed to create the 
 state of Yoga in the sphere of life to which it relates (BG p.486).

Yes, but this comment is relevant primarily to the 'step' question and not the 
necessity of practicing all of them *simultaneously*. Remember MMY uses the 
word *means* to describe Patanjali's 8 limbs. Each one is a *means* to 
Yoga..shouldn't we be practicing them all? as Patanjali recommended?

PS You can row a boat with one paddle but two are better...and eight?, well, 
you get the idea.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Get out the vote! (Re: Sexy Time)

Marek,

Aw, Marek, I'm such a sucker for your equanimity. Honestly, I swoon at your 
clarity. Ya makes my good parts vibrate like puppy tails.

You've had to gently grab my elbow more than once here, and you're good at it.

Confession: Turq's energy triggers me.  I just don't like his way of slapping 
anyone's face anytime he wants to and then running away from the discussion and 
putting his fingers in his ears.  Not that he does it every time, not that I 
don't do this too, but that he has done it often enough -- such that I should 
have, by now had a forehead slapping epiphany and learned to simply stay away 
from him.

And there's the rub, I don't -- he still can say things which trigger me. I 
give him that power. That's a tell that I'm still attempting to resolve my 
inner roilings that can find me indulging in sublimating and projecting the 
negativity of my past into some real life situation in hopes that an outer 
resolution will give hints at how to handle the inner conflicts.  In effect, I 
toss it out there so that I can get it off my front burner in here.

Not that I haven't confessed as much previously, and not that anyone will 
consider my past in any way that is as balanced as your perusals of me, but it 
sure would do me some personal good if folks would take my concepts instead of 
my barbs as their talking points.  But, yeah, my acidity can make it almost 
impossible to do just that.

When I snark about Turq's predatory ways, I'm pointing to something in his life 
that I see in almost everyone's life -- including my own.  

Not that we're all cafe droolers, but that we are all capable of wearing masks 
to the detriment of others.  

If I am projecting my own predatory dynamics upon a 
Turq-who-is-almost-wholly-innocent-of-such-charges, what of it?  That's 
something I should deal with, yes, but what of the issue of predation in 
general?

As a writer, I fail at delivering the concepts if I am dressing them up with an 
untoward specificity that doesn't jive with the readers. I'm seen to be not 
only trying to discuss an issue, but I'm also pandering to some personal attack 
agenda.  So, instead of trying to get a good discussion going, my striking out 
with such ridiculous overkill burdens the discussion such that responders 
cannot avoid handling my excesses instead of the concepts I've hyped. Yeah, I 
get it.

I could write about George Bush's marauding, but there's thousands of bloggers 
with great insight and writing skills who have adequately deconstructed his 
brand of evil.  But try to find bloggers who see in themselves that same evil.  
Easy to just attack Bush and ignore how it is that we are so certain he has 
erred stupendously.

It would be incredible if most folks could easily see their inner Bush, but I 
think it is much easier to imagine folks seeing that they are not unlike the 
scoundrel aspects of Turq's personality.  Smaller sins make the burden of 
recognizing resonance lighter.  

With 2/3rds of the world getting less than two dollars a day, it's hard to get 
someone to say, I'm part of that.  My mind has abetted that crime.  But the 
same folks will have an easier time seeing themselves more clearly when they 
pass by a homeless person asking for donations with a wave of a rusty coffee 
can. Harder, then, to slip into some rationalization.

Ten years ago, I was so humbled by this young boy I read about in the news.

This kid was with his father, and they saw some homeless person, and the kid 
asked his dad about the situation.  At some point, the kid cut to the chase in 
a way that, to my thinking, had the power to humble the haught of most 
elitists.  He simply asked his father if he could go home and get that extra 
blanket out of the closet and give it to this shivering man on the streets.  It 
melted his father's heart on the spot.  The kid was saying, This I can do.  
This will help. This is easy. This is simple. I have the power to help someone 
in an immediate and significant way.

Well, the father, what could he do?  Here was a guy who had probably passed 
hundreds of homeless folks out there street begging and never had the thought, 
I can at least help in some small way.  So he took his kid home, they got the 
blanket, and, hey, the kid made a couple sandwiches also, and back they went 
and gave the guy the stuff.  The kid seemingly then and there had found his 
calling.

So, bang, the kid, with a twelve year old's purity and innocence, started 
knocking on his neighbors' doors and asking if they would help him somehow to 
help these homeless folks downtown.  I can only imagine how those neighbors 
felt in the presence of a pure spiritual intent.  I cannot imagine any of them 
resisting the kid's intent -- surely all of them had an extra blanket or 
sandwich.

The kid went on to amass such a following that a foundation had to manifest to 
structure all the activities he'd managed to inspire.  Can't remember the kid's 
name, city, etc., but I'll always

[FairfieldLife] Get out the vote! (Re: Sexy Time)

Ah, good stuff.  Good writing.  Ya melts me.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote:

 In café light computer glow
 A spider weaves his web
 To snag a tasty boy or girl
 And trap them in his thread
 
 Suspended tethered by his wits
 In trance are they before him
 The shallow dishpan of his love
 Preys on forever grim
 
 A one night stand a piper's dance 
 Lovers leaving ever
 His empty net a wisp of wind
 Scattered dust and severed
 
 Twilight moon in Sitges waning 
 Youthful bloom a-fading
 Cruising beaches wrinkled, naked
 Reaper's cloak evading
 
 raunchydog

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have been 
able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.


Vaj,

Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
use of ATP at the least.

I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of bodily 
excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the bloodstream fast 
enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will take another breath 
when it needs to.

I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
processing and using oxygen.

I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.

But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- that 
is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?

Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?

Edg

Re: [FairfieldLife] Quote from Guru Dev

2009-05-06 Thread Sal Sunshine


On May 6, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Rick Archer wrote:


'One can become a  mahatma wherever one lives.


Is that anything like a hot mama?

No one becomes a mahatma by simply wearing ochre  clothing or by  
applying some marks to the forehead. Dress and other externals  will  
not lead to the ultimate good, whereas faith will certainly lead to  
it.  The state of a mahatma is determined by the state of mind. So  
stay wherever  you are, but change the direction of your mind. Think  
less about samsara and  think more about Paramatma.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Dad's Stronger than Your Dad!

2009-05-06 Thread Richard J. Williams

grate.swan  wrote:
 The second is the claim to new and dazzling 
 stuff that while it may have no practical 
 value, and perhaps is rarely used, still 
 makes my thing, and thus me, (WAY) better 
 than you...
 
This points to a very subtle 'greed-for-views'
which must be rooted out. An aspirant must
adopt a 'middle way' between to much metaphysical
speculation and to little actual practice.

Zen Master Dogen says that there are no steps on 
The Way - there's just the awareness or not. But
greed for views is very difficult to overcome
for some people - that's what the Zen Masters
call 'mistaking the pointing finger for the moon.'

... you must suspend your attempts to understand 
by means of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity 
of the mind which seeks externally, and illuminate 
your own true nature (page 96).

'How to Raise an Ox'
Zen Practice as Taught in Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo 
by Francis D Cook, Ph.D. 
Forward by Taizan Maezumi Roshi
Wisdom Publications, 2002

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
 been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.

Ahh, I think I wrote that, at any rate see below...

 Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
 use of ATP at the least.

 *that man doth not live by bread only*, but by every word that proceedeth out 
of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
-- Deuteronomy 8: 2-3 (KJV)

What this means Edg according to Swami Yoganada is that man's life precludes 
nutrition, the 'prana' that is the life of plants, animals and humans is the 
real source of mans existence.

When during deep meditation the metabolic rate comes to zero, the individual 
prana is withdrawn (not the earth prana) and man is sustained by pure prana 
which is life itself! The 'silver cord' remains attached or the man would die, 
true transcending is conscious death.


 I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
 bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
 bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will 
 take another breath when it needs to.

Actually it means the breath ceases altogether and man is living by the 'inner 
bread of life' a true state of transcendental consciousness.
 
 I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
 hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
 processing and using oxygen.

Some Yogis have been buried for years, (remember Autobiography of a Yogi?) and 
resuscitated.

 
 I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
 rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.
 
 But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
 oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
 that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?
 
 Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?
 
 Edg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sexy Time


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

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

  Turq's on record here naysaying just about every sort of moral; does
anyone here think he'd pass up hitting on some girl who's, say,
distraught, or, way drunk, or, otherwise momentarily vulnerable?

 Yes I'm certain he would pass up hitting on the drunk or distraught.
 Because that is abuse and what Turq is talking about is fun between
 consenting adults. You have to have no respect at all for women to
take advantage like this (it's illegal now too)

I don't accuse Turq of having ever done so, but that, since he rejects
all notions of moral axioms, if he did maraud a much younger woman, he
can tell us that he'd properly warned us of the possibility and he's
thusly protected by caveat empor.  You know, what the scorpian said to
the frog.

 Seems to me like there is a lot of sexism in your post Edg, you
 seem to be assuming that women aren't capable of deciding for
themselves who they want to spend the night with and that they
 are easily persuaded otherwise.

I've plainly said that young men can be as easily predated as young
women.

The world has moved on from this
 50's morality of dumb broads waiting for men to flex their biceps
 or open their laptops.


  Fuck, walk into any Starbucks and look at the guys with their
laptops.  Fucking look at them will ya?  Who the fuck goes to a crowded
coffee shop to do serious work?  These guys are looking for women. Do
it.  Go there and simply look at what the guys do with their eyes.

 Guys looking at girls? I'm shocked, truly. How will the
 world survive this outrage.

What's your point?  Do you think I'm saying it's wrong to look at women?

I am making the points that 1. doing business of merit in a coffee shop
is going to be a rare event, 2. given a lot of foot traffic it is
certain that the weak ones will be a significant portion of that
traffic, 3. and that predators can be found in sheep's clothing.

 PS I use a copy of The Guardian, does it work better with a
 laptop?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

2009-05-06 Thread ruthsimplicity

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

 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
 been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.
 
 
 Vaj,
 
 Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
 use of ATP at the least.
 
 I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
 bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
 bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will 
 take another breath when it needs to.
 
 I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
 hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
 processing and using oxygen.
 
 I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
 rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.
 
 But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
 oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
 that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?
 
 Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?
 
 Edg


My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at 
all.  Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die.   

I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to 
me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold 
his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. .  Divers and yogis use 
certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice.  And then 
before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs,  
then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air. 

Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

2009-05-06 Thread ruthsimplicity

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

 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
 been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.
 
 
 Vaj,
 
 Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
 use of ATP at the least.
 
 I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
 bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
 bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will 
 take another breath when it needs to.
 
 I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
 hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
 processing and using oxygen.
 
 I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
 rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.
 
 But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
 oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
 that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?
 
 Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?
 
 Edg

My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at 
all.  Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die.  Or 
breath. 

I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to 
me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold 
his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use 
certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then 
before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, 
then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air.

Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

2009-05-06 Thread ruthsimplicity

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

 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
 been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.
 
 
 Vaj,
 
 Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
 use of ATP at the least.
 
 I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
 bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
 bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will 
 take another breath when it needs to.
 
 I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
 hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
 processing and using oxygen.
 
 I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
 rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.
 
 But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
 oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
 that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?
 
 Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?
 
 Edg

My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at all.
Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe.

I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems to 
me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to hold 
his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis use 
certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And then 
before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the lungs, 
then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps of air.

Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

OK, just as a last point before I write Edg off 
as too mentally ill to bother to read or reply
to, ever, he is *still* continuing on his Turq
is a predator routine.

Just yesterday, as I remember, as needy as ever, he
implored people to vote on whether they supported
his fantasy of predation where I was concerned.
I said nothing. Nothing. 

Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
(no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise). 
I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
said he was being silly.

Everyone else essentially told him that he was full
of shit.

When announcing his little vote he claimed he'd
be open to reassessing things and even hinted at
admitting that he was wrong. I think we now see
exactly how good *Edg's* word is, and how moral
he really is. 

He still continues his predator routine, and will
in the future. The man is insane. That is my only
explanation for his behavior. 

Not for the first time, I pity the woman who lives
with him, if she exists. She *has* to put up with
this level of hypocrisy. I don't; relief is as
close as the Delete key.

Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to 
know what you *really* think of people, and the
extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
you need look no further than the way you format
(or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
is sent using word wrap, which means that for 
many readers here, including everyone using the
Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
And you don't CARE. 

The *reason* you don't care about your readers
is that they aren't *important* to you when you
write. That's why you never sell anything. The only 
thing that is important to you is your own out-of-
control ego, and allowing it to vent. 

Do so all by your lonesome. I will have nothing
more to do with you.


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

 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
  
 
   Turq's on record here naysaying just about every sort of moral; does
 anyone here think he'd pass up hitting on some girl who's, say,
 distraught, or, way drunk, or, otherwise momentarily vulnerable?
 
  Yes I'm certain he would pass up hitting on the drunk or distraught.
  Because that is abuse and what Turq is talking about is fun between
  consenting adults. You have to have no respect at all for women to
 take advantage like this (it's illegal now too)
 
 I don't accuse Turq of having ever done so, but that, since he rejects
 all notions of moral axioms, if he did maraud a much younger woman, he
 can tell us that he'd properly warned us of the possibility and he's
 thusly protected by caveat empor.  You know, what the scorpian said to
 the frog.
 
  Seems to me like there is a lot of sexism in your post Edg, you
  seem to be assuming that women aren't capable of deciding for
 themselves who they want to spend the night with and that they
  are easily persuaded otherwise.
 
 I've plainly said that young men can be as easily predated as young
 women.
 
 The world has moved on from this
  50's morality of dumb broads waiting for men to flex their biceps
  or open their laptops.
 
 
   Fuck, walk into any Starbucks and look at the guys with their
 laptops.  Fucking look at them will ya?  Who the fuck goes to a crowded
 coffee shop to do serious work?  These guys are looking for women. Do
 it.  Go there and simply look at what the guys do with their eyes.
 
  Guys looking at girls? I'm shocked, truly. How will the
  world survive this outrage.
 
 What's your point?  Do you think I'm saying it's wrong to look at women?
 
 I am making the points that 1. doing business of merit in a coffee shop
 is going to be a rare event, 2. given a lot of foot traffic it is
 certain that the weak ones will be a significant portion of that
 traffic, 3. and that predators can be found in sheep's clothing.
 
  PS I use a copy of The Guardian, does it work better with a
  laptop?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at 
 all.
 Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe.

This is not actually true according to Yogic Science, 'life' in the body is not 
from air, food and sun alone but also the prana, the subtle 'life force' 
without which one would die.

One will learn, eventually, through meditations like TM to withdraw the 
attention completely and live sustained solely by the prana.

It's a complex subject but 'basically' there are four pranas in question here, 
two apparently stay with the objective physical body and two completely leave 
and give rise to higher states of consciousness like transcendental 
consciousness. See MMY's talk on immortality on the physical level previously 
posted.

From Autobiography of a Yogi below:

No responsive stir from Master; I approached him cautiously. He was not 
breathing. This was my first observation of him in the yogic trance; it filled 
me with fright.

His heart must have failed! I placed a mirror under his nose; no breath-vapor 
appeared. To make doubly certain, for minutes I closed his mouth and nostrils 
with my fingers. His body was cold and motionless. In a daze, I turned toward 
the door to summon help.

This state is also mentioned in St. John's Revelation.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice 
like the sound of a trumpet, (sound of OM, from where all mantras come).


17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right 
hand on me, saying, Do not be afraid;  


 I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems 
 to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to 
 hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis 
 use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And 
 then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the 
 lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps 
 of air.
 
 Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
 but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
 Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
 to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
 who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
 (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise). 
 I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
 said he was being silly.

Here's what I *actually* said:

Incidentally, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on
Edg's emotional health, and I think his 'predator'
kick is kinda silly, but he's just *nailed* Barry's
transparent phoniness in several of his recent posts.

snip
 Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
 is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to 
 know what you *really* think of people, and the
 extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
 you need look no further than the way you format
 (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
 is sent using word wrap, which means that for 
 many readers here, including everyone using the
 Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
 And you don't CARE. 

Actually, most of his posts are perfectly readable
on the Web site. Some of them have a few runovers,
but that's easily fixable by making the type size
slightly smaller in your browser.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

ruthsimplicity wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote:
   
 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
 been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.


 Vaj,

 Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means some 
 use of ATP at the least.

 I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
 bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
 bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body will 
 take another breath when it needs to.

 I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
 hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is still 
 processing and using oxygen.

 I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
 rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.

 But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
 oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
 that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?

 Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?

 Edg

 

 My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at 
 all.  Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die.   

 I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems 
 to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to 
 hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. .  Divers and yogis 
 use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice.  And 
 then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the 
 lungs,  then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps 
 of air. 

 Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
 but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities. 
One friend who is an Indian MD (and not associated with the TM movement 
in any way) has talked about these cases of people (not necessarily 
yogis because anyone can master the technique) who would come into a 
hospital and ask doctors to check them while they went into a state that 
resembled death.  And indeed they were able slow their metabolism so 
much that they would appear dead according to medical tests.  There are 
some mantras that can really slow the metabolism and must be handled 
with care.   It would be interesting to check long term practitioners of 
meditation techniques (and this MUST include non-TM ones) for sleep 
apnea because I bet if the metabolic state gets very low it may appear 
they are having one of those attacks but of course they're not and 
should not be treated for it.

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

wow- your actual identity is really wrapped up in this issue, huh? 

anyway, whether you think i am 'Jim' or not (i am not...), the tally stands at 
two people voicing disagreement with Edg, and two voicing agreement with him.

so your public psyche remains up for grabs. i personally think Edg was spot on, 
and you can call us cunts and crazy and bitches and all of the rest, but the 
funny thing is, you can't change what we see in you. many of us.

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

 OK, just as a last point before I write Edg off 
 as too mentally ill to bother to read or reply
 to, ever, he is *still* continuing on his Turq
 is a predator routine.
 
 Just yesterday, as I remember, as needy as ever, he
 implored people to vote on whether they supported
 his fantasy of predation where I was concerned.
 I said nothing. Nothing. 
 
 Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
 to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
 who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
 (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise). 
 I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
 said he was being silly.
 
 Everyone else essentially told him that he was full
 of shit.
 
 When announcing his little vote he claimed he'd
 be open to reassessing things and even hinted at
 admitting that he was wrong. I think we now see
 exactly how good *Edg's* word is, and how moral
 he really is. 
 
 He still continues his predator routine, and will
 in the future. The man is insane. That is my only
 explanation for his behavior. 
 
 Not for the first time, I pity the woman who lives
 with him, if she exists. She *has* to put up with
 this level of hypocrisy. I don't; relief is as
 close as the Delete key.
 
 Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
 is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to 
 know what you *really* think of people, and the
 extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
 you need look no further than the way you format
 (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
 is sent using word wrap, which means that for 
 many readers here, including everyone using the
 Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
 And you don't CARE. 
 
 The *reason* you don't care about your readers
 is that they aren't *important* to you when you
 write. That's why you never sell anything. The only 
 thing that is important to you is your own out-of-
 control ego, and allowing it to vent. 
 
 Do so all by your lonesome. I will have nothing
 more to do with you.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
   
  
Turq's on record here naysaying just about every sort of moral; does
  anyone here think he'd pass up hitting on some girl who's, say,
  distraught, or, way drunk, or, otherwise momentarily vulnerable?
  
   Yes I'm certain he would pass up hitting on the drunk or distraught.
   Because that is abuse and what Turq is talking about is fun between
   consenting adults. You have to have no respect at all for women to
  take advantage like this (it's illegal now too)
  
  I don't accuse Turq of having ever done so, but that, since he rejects
  all notions of moral axioms, if he did maraud a much younger woman, he
  can tell us that he'd properly warned us of the possibility and he's
  thusly protected by caveat empor.  You know, what the scorpian said to
  the frog.
  
   Seems to me like there is a lot of sexism in your post Edg, you
   seem to be assuming that women aren't capable of deciding for
  themselves who they want to spend the night with and that they
   are easily persuaded otherwise.
  
  I've plainly said that young men can be as easily predated as young
  women.
  
  The world has moved on from this
   50's morality of dumb broads waiting for men to flex their biceps
   or open their laptops.
  
  
Fuck, walk into any Starbucks and look at the guys with their
  laptops.  Fucking look at them will ya?  Who the fuck goes to a crowded
  coffee shop to do serious work?  These guys are looking for women. Do
  it.  Go there and simply look at what the guys do with their eyes.
  
   Guys looking at girls? I'm shocked, truly. How will the
   world survive this outrage.
  
  What's your point?  Do you think I'm saying it's wrong to look at women?
  
  I am making the points that 1. doing business of merit in a coffee shop
  is going to be a rare event, 2. given a lot of foot traffic it is
  certain that the weak ones will be a significant portion of that
  traffic, 3. and that predators can be found in sheep's clothing.
  
   PS I use a copy of The Guardian, does it work better with a
   laptop?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM


On May 6, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Duveyoung wrote:

 Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group  
 have been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative  
 of Samadhi.

Uh, Edg, I didn't say this.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Raw Story Down

Bhairitu wrote:
 For those looking for their hourly fix of news on Raw Story it is down.  
 According to the Brad Blog the site was moved to a new server and the IP 
 address has not propagated yet.  This could take 24 hours or more.   
 However I've had my server moved and it didn't take that long.  It used 
 to years ago.
They came back up a couple hours later.  Perhaps the Brad Blog 
mentioning it got some IT people to speed up the process.  The reason 
they changed servers is to put up their new Web 2.0 (?) layout which is 
meeting with mixed reactions.  I actually liked the older format because 
it was easy to scan the summaries and see if you wanted to read that 
article or not.  Now you have to click on them.  I also think it is even 
a messy Web 2.0 design compared to other news sites I've seen using Web 
2.0.  Go check it out:
www.rawstory.com

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

I use Yahoo's online post message form to compose.  This is the first
time I ever was notified that this makes for bad HTML formatting for
those getting the posts via email.

Are all the rest of you, what?, typing until
your sentences get to about ...here
and then hitting the return key?.

I'm using the rich-text Editor for this post, with Georgia font at the
2 setting.  Does this come out badly in your emails?

My posts have always appeared readable to me using the browser, and for
most of the time I don't even go into the rich-text editor.  Are ALL my
posts coming out badly formatted?...or just about half of them?

For someone to think I've been doing this on purpose seems an odd
projection given how my reputation here is that of a narcissist seeking
approbation.   Is that how Turq works it out for himself -- that is,
does he devise such methods to bother others but that he can duck any
responsibility for by having 100% deny-ability?  Sigh, now I'll never
know, cuz he's done with mesee him running with his fingers in his
ears screaming la la la la?

Edg



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
  to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
  who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
  (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise).
  I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
  said he was being silly.

 Here's what I *actually* said:

 Incidentally, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on
 Edg's emotional health, and I think his 'predator'
 kick is kinda silly, but he's just *nailed* Barry's
 transparent phoniness in several of his recent posts.

 snip
  Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
  is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to
  know what you *really* think of people, and the
  extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
  you need look no further than the way you format
  (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
  is sent using word wrap, which means that for
  many readers here, including everyone using the
  Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
  And you don't CARE.

 Actually, most of his posts are perfectly readable
 on the Web site. Some of them have a few runovers,
 but that's easily fixable by making the type size
 slightly smaller in your browser.


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
  to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
  who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
  (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise).
  I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
  said he was being silly.

 Here's what I *actually* said:

 Incidentally, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on
 Edg's emotional health, and I think his 'predator'
 kick is kinda silly, but he's just *nailed* Barry's
 transparent phoniness in several of his recent posts.

 snip
  Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
  is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to
  know what you *really* think of people, and the
  extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
  you need look no further than the way you format
  (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
  is sent using word wrap, which means that for
  many readers here, including everyone using the
  Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
  And you don't CARE.

 Actually, most of his posts are perfectly readable
 on the Web site. Some of them have a few runovers,
 but that's easily fixable by making the type size
 slightly smaller in your browser.

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

2009-05-06 Thread Richard J. Williams

Duveyoung wrote:
 Are all the rest of you, what?, typing until
 your sentences get to about ...here
 and then hitting the return key?.
 
Yes, that's the ticket, Edg.

[FairfieldLife] Single-Payer National Health Insurance

2009-05-06 Thread do.rflex



Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or 
quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains 
largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet 
inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the 
industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly 
in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant 
mortality and immunization rates. 

Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their 
entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and 
millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we 
have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. 

Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing 
to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing 
departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and 
hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the 
bureaucracy. 

Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of 
Americans' health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The 
potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to 
provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we 
already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically 
necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, 
mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and 
medical supply costs. 

Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would 
regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or 
receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals 
would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and 
expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning 
boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and 
recapturing their administrative waste. 

Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently 
paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated 
fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

~~ Physicians for a National Health Program
Much more at link: ttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Single-Payer National Health Insurance

2009-05-06 Thread do.rflex



Link CORRECTION: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php



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

 
 
 Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public 
 or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care 
 remains largely private.
 
 Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet 
 inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the 
 industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly 
 in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant 
 mortality and immunization rates. 
 
 Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their 
 entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured 
 and millions more inadequately covered.
 
 The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because 
 we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. 
 
 Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing 
 to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing 
 departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and 
 hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the 
 bureaucracy. 
 
 Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of 
 Americans' health dollars.
 
 Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The 
 potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough 
 to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we 
 already do.
 
 Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically 
 necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, 
 mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug 
 and medical supply costs. 
 
 Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would 
 regain autonomy over patient care.
 
 Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary 
 or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. 
 Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health 
 facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional 
 health planning boards.
 
 A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and 
 recapturing their administrative waste. 
 
 Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently 
 paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through 
 negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
 
 ~~ Physicians for a National Health Program
 Much more at link: ttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle, Cannings Bridge, Wiltshire. Reported 6th May

2009-05-06 Thread nablusoss1008


  http://www.earthfiles.com/shop.php

All Cannings Bridge, nr Stanton St Bernard, Wiltshire. Reported 6th May.
Map Ref: LOCATION
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=407652y=162455z=120sv=407652,16\
2455st=4ar=ymapp=map.srfsearchp=ids.srfdn=751ax=407652ay=162455l\
m=0
This Page has been accessed
  [Hit Counter]

Updated Wednesday 6th May  2009
  http://www.starnationgallery.com/new.html   AERIAL SHOTS GROUND
SHOTS
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/allcannings/groundshots.html 
DIAGRAMS
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/allcannings/diagrams.html 
FIELD REPORTS
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/allcannings/fieldreports.html 
COMMENTS
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/allcannings/comments.html 
ARTICLES
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/allcannings/articles.html
  http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer09c.html

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST CROP CIRCLE CONNECTOR DVD
http://www.cccvault.com/cccvideos/trailer09c.html





  http://www.thecropcircleshop.com/
Make a donation to keep the web site alive... Thank you



Images Russell Stannard Copyright 2009

FOR VISITING THE CROP CIRCLES.

  http://cropcircleconnector.com/forum/index.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  As I said, we agree to disagree...
 
  Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many legitimate i
  interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.
 
 
  Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
  (not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
  subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred to
  as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers: give
  me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on their
  own, just give me power, NOW.
 
 
 
  Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?
 
 
 That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try  
 to skip the angas.


Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program?

L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?

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

 
 On May 6, 2009, at 3:04 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
 
 
  I'm pointing this out because I think a lot of
  people on this forum FALL for thought stoppers.
  The TM movement was not long on compassion. It
  never taught its followers that a person could be
  partly good, partly bad. The model invoked was
  always the clear-cut It's only the Pandavas and
  the Kauravas, the rakshasas and the perfect saints
  scenario we see in TM stories. Black and white, no
  middle ground. So if a person is characterized as
  black, they are ALL black.
 
 
 You're missing one of the biggest TM org thought stoppers:
 
 Pure Consciousness.
 
 We were supposed to think wow, what could be better that PURE  
 consciousness? I don't need to look and farther or look into this  
 any more, if it's pure (and the experience they're telling me I will  
 have is Pure Consciousness), then I need look no further.
 
 But what's happening is other meditation researchers are seeing  
 through this screen of re-definition. the Cambridge Handbook of  
 Consciousness, the standard textbook in neurological and  
 consciousness research pointed this out several years ago. Before  
 that neurologist and Zen master James Austin pointed out how the word  
 was being used in a misleading kind of way, without any profound  
 proof for this profoundly named experience. 'The phrase ï¿½ï¿½pure  
 consciousnessï¿½ï¿½ continues to sow confusion more than a
 decade after Forman pointed to its semantic pitfalls. When someone  
 employs the term today, it remains unclear whether its usage  
 describes an early moment, an intermediate step, or some ultimate  
 stage among the several optional varieties of consciousness. He then  
 goes on to describe in detail how the word is being used by TM  
 researchers to claim an exalted state, when in fact they're actual  
 attaching the thought-stopper (pun intended;-)) to a very rudimentary  
 state.
 
 It looks like the tom-foolery has been exposed.
 
 Beyond the thought-stopper is the further tendency 'if you repeat a  
 lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.' Despite being  
 caught at their act, I'm certain TM researchers, teachers and  
 professors will still continue to use Pure Consciousness as a  
 description. The fact is, at this point in the game, if they were  
 forced to abandon their use of this word, as applies to TM and it's  
 results, they'd have to rewrite websites and revise the entire  
 literature of TM, Maharishi Vedic Science--virtually ALL of the MUM  
 curriculum! It's all based on this (LOL) thought-stopper!



You're assuming that Austin has evidence of the more exhalted states,
did you notice? And who decides which laternate state is exhalted
in the first place?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Vaj wrote: I don't think most TM'ers or most meditators in any group have 
  been able to achieve the 'breathless' state which is indicative of Samadhi.
  
  
  Vaj,
  
  Define breathless.  Seems to me that living is living, and that means 
  some use of ATP at the least.
  
  I'm guessing that suspension of breath merely means that the level of 
  bodily excitation is so low that oxygen is not being removed from the 
  bloodstream fast enough to justify inhalation for the nonce. The body 
  will take another breath when it needs to.
  
  I personally love the concept of the bricked-up-in-a-cave yogi who is only 
  hanging out by a thread.  But, however slowly it may be, the yogi is 
  still processing and using oxygen.
  
  I like your stages of consciousness concepts, because I can, as if, see the 
  rate-of-oxidation spectrum they comprise.
  
  But, is that the whole truth?  Do you think there's some sort of miraculous 
  oxygenless format of some stage of consciousness that would be eternal -- 
  that is, the bricked yogi never takes another breath?
  
  Does God breathe astral oxygen?  Does prana have any utility in Vicuntha?
  
  Edg
 
 My understanding of the breathless state is that there is no breathing at 
 all.
 Of course, this cannot continue indefinitely as you would die. Or breathe.
 
 I think it was David Blane (not sure on spelling), the magician, ( who seems 
 to me to be someone who has remarkable control over the body) who managed to 
 hold his breath underwater for 17 minutes or thereabouts. Divers and yogis 
 use certain techniques to increase the ability to breath hold. Practice. And 
 then before a big breath hold, first you do a slow and steady filling of the 
 lungs, then exhalations to purge CO2 and then a final series of quick gulps 
 of air.
 
 Most people can learn to hold their breath for 2 or 3 minutes pretty easily, 
 but you shouldn't if you have ventricular abnormalities.


Quite a few years ago, the TM researchers admitted that the breath suspension
state during TM was only apparent. There's several studies that have looked
at the state in-depth and I'm pretty sure I've cited all of them here more than 
5 times
each. The big three citations follow:

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/133

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/46/3/267

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/133


All three are full reprints. Enjoy.


Lawson.

[FairfieldLife] Lynch concert raised one million

2009-05-06 Thread bob_brigante


I was trying to figure out how a concert with top seats at $500 and a
hall capacity of 6000 could raise three million (
http://snipurl.com/hiae2 http://snipurl.com/hiae2   [philanthropy_com]
). Today's MUM Review says it's more like one million:

http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/ http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/

1. McCartney Concert a Success: Raises Funds, Spurs Interest

The benefit concert by Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, and a
host
of other top-name performers was a great success, raising over $1
million,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lynch concert raised one million

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

 
 I was trying to figure out how a concert with top seats at $500 and a
 hall capacity of 6000 could raise three million (
 http://snipurl.com/hiae2 http://snipurl.com/hiae2   [philanthropy_com]
 ). Today's MUM Review says it's more like one million:
 
 http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/ http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/
 
 1. McCartney Concert a Success: Raises Funds, Spurs Interest
 
 The benefit concert by Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, and a
 host
 of other top-name performers was a great success, raising over $1
 million,


Eh, as a direct fund-raise, I wouldn't call that a big success. OTOH, as PR
it might be quite effective.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

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

 I use Yahoo's online post message form to compose.  This is the 
first
 time I ever was notified that this makes for bad HTML formatting for
 those getting the posts via email.
 
 Are all the rest of you, what?, typing until
 your sentences get to about ...here
 and then hitting the return key?.
 
 I'm using the rich-text Editor for this post, with Georgia font at the
 2 setting.  Does this come out badly in your emails?
 
 My posts have always appeared readable to me using the browser, and 
for
 most of the time I don't even go into the rich-text editor.  Are ALL 
my
 posts coming out badly formatted?...or just about half of them?
 
 For someone to think I've been doing this on purpose seems an odd
 projection given how my reputation here is that of a narcissist 
seeking
 approbation.   Is that how Turq works it out for himself -- that is,
 does he devise such methods to bother others but that he can duck any
 responsibility for by having 100% deny-ability?  Sigh, now I'll never
 know, cuz he's done with mesee him running with his fingers in his
 ears screaming la la la la?
 
 Edg
 
 
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
   to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
   who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
   (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise).
   I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
   said he was being silly.
 
  Here's what I *actually* said:
 
  Incidentally, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on
  Edg's emotional health, and I think his 'predator'
  kick is kinda silly, but he's just *nailed* Barry's
  transparent phoniness in several of his recent posts.
 
  snip
   Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
   is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to
   know what you *really* think of people, and the
   extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
   you need look no further than the way you format
   (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
   is sent using word wrap, which means that for
   many readers here, including everyone using the
   Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
   And you don't CARE.
 
  Actually, most of his posts are perfectly readable
  on the Web site. Some of them have a few runovers,
  but that's easily fixable by making the type size
  slightly smaller in your browser.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
  snip
   Several people, however, voted. I haven't bothered
   to count, and won't, but as I recall the *only* ones
   who checked in to support Edg's fantasies were Jim
   (no surprise there) and Nabby (again, no surprise).
   I don't even think Willytex supported him. Even Judy
   said he was being silly.
 
  Here's what I *actually* said:
 
  Incidentally, I wouldn't want to pass judgment on
  Edg's emotional health, and I think his 'predator'
  kick is kinda silly, but he's just *nailed* Barry's
  transparent phoniness in several of his recent posts.
 
  snip
   Edg, you are toast as far as I am concerned. Here
   is one last suggestion for you -- if you want to
   know what you *really* think of people, and the
   extent of your narcissism and out-of-control ego,
   you need look no further than the way you format
   (or fail to) your posts. Every single one of them
   is sent using word wrap, which means that for
   many readers here, including everyone using the
   Yahoo Web interface, they are nigh unto unreadable.
   And you don't CARE.
 
  Actually, most of his posts are perfectly readable
  on the Web site. Some of them have a few runovers,
  but that's easily fixable by making the type size
  slightly smaller in your browser.
 


Edg - I think Yahoo's editor sucks. 

I try to improve on it by using my text editor to compose 
(http://www.editpadpro.com/). I set 72 chars line length and use the 
option to convert line wrapping to line breaks. Then I paste that back 
to Yahoo.

But far all I know my posts are crap when viewed in folks' email 
clients (er...I mean look like crap).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM



On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, sparaig wrote:


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



On May 6, 2009, at 1:27 AM, sparaig wrote:


As I said, we agree to disagree...

Or, to quote a famous anonymous sage: there are as many  
legitimate i

interpretations of the Veda as there are enlightened persons.



Unfortunately this is one area where the sages of the yoga-darshana
(not the Veda) are in agreement. Generally the type of people who
subvert the angas are what would in western languages be referred  
to
as black magicians or in theosophical lingo black brothers:  
give
me the magic, let me circumvent the virtues, they will come on  
their

own, just give me power, NOW.




Is that how you see the TM-Sidhis program?



That is how the yogic tradition perceives the intent of those who try
to skip the angas.



Is that how you perceive the TM-Sidhis program?


Black magicians? It's one possibility but not necessarily in the way  
you would think of it as. Some masters like to use such techniques to  
enslave their students so they tend to stick around. So for a  
disreputable teacher, they have a certain function.


More often though it's just an error in the way the yoga-sutras are  
taught. SBS certainly agrees, as he clearly states siddhis should  
trail behind you (i.e. not you chasing after them with formulae). He  
quite clearly echoes the sentiments of the yogic tradition and the  
Holy Shankaracharya Order as well.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Ron Paul Revolution Sweeping the GOP

Ron Paul was very good today on Rachel Maddow's radio show.   He pretty 
much nails it but to get broader support has to clarify his positions on 
corporatism.  He thinks Democrats wants in power shouldn't be courting 
the right just to stay in power.   He probably needs a third party and 
maybe to get a elected we need a younger version.  But do you think the 
evil ones (corporate masters) would allow him or someone like him to 
stay in power?  BTW, I think that this season's 24 is doing a pretty 
good job in demonstrating how the country is really run.


off_world_beings wrote:
 Sergeant Leeds?   why is a warmonger like you interested in an
 extreme pacififist environmentalist like Ron Paul?

 OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thought stoppers -- the tool of choice of people whose thought stops?


On May 6, 2009, at 6:16 PM, sparaig wrote:

 You're missing one of the biggest TM org thought stoppers:

 Pure Consciousness.

 We were supposed to think wow, what could be better that PURE
 consciousness? I don't need to look and farther or look into this
 any more, if it's pure (and the experience they're telling me I will
 have is Pure Consciousness), then I need look no further.

 But what's happening is other meditation researchers are seeing
 through this screen of re-definition. the Cambridge Handbook of
 Consciousness, the standard textbook in neurological and
 consciousness research pointed this out several years ago. Before
 that neurologist and Zen master James Austin pointed out how the word
 was being used in a misleading kind of way, without any profound
 proof for this profoundly named experience. 'The phrase ï¿½ï¿½pure
 consciousnessï¿½ï¿½ continues to sow confusion more than a
 decade after Forman pointed to its semantic pitfalls. When someone
 employs the term today, it remains unclear whether its usage
 describes an early moment, an intermediate step, or some ultimate
 stage among the several optional varieties of consciousness. He then
 goes on to describe in detail how the word is being used by TM
 researchers to claim an exalted state, when in fact they're actual
 attaching the thought-stopper (pun intended;-)) to a very rudimentary
 state.

 It looks like the tom-foolery has been exposed.

 Beyond the thought-stopper is the further tendency 'if you repeat a
 lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.' Despite being
 caught at their act, I'm certain TM researchers, teachers and
 professors will still continue to use Pure Consciousness as a
 description. The fact is, at this point in the game, if they were
 forced to abandon their use of this word, as applies to TM and it's
 results, they'd have to rewrite websites and revise the entire
 literature of TM, Maharishi Vedic Science--virtually ALL of the MUM
 curriculum! It's all based on this (LOL) thought-stopper!



 You're assuming that Austin has evidence of the more exhalted  
 states,
 did you notice?

Well, I'm taking his own extensive experience of higher states of  
consciousness as valuable. I personally found his accounts very  
believable, incredibly detail and insightful.

 And who decides which laternate state is exhalted
 in the first place?

Well I don't believe that is specifically Austin's observation on PC.  
Austin's observation seems to me to be one common for people familiar  
with staged forms of meditation experientially who then encounter a  
single-stage meditation techniques which claim the ability to access  
very high stages: they experientially know and recognize the folly.

His written comments, where he criticizes the ambiguous use of TM  
buzzwords like pure consciousness and cosmic consciousness are  
based both on his own direct experience of thought-free states back in  
the early part of his meditative retreat experience and how further  
higher more unitive states follow thereafter. He feels, as do many  
other experienced meditators, that the words used and research claims  
are not congruent with the actual experiences that are traditionally  
known to belong to them. Instead the states being described by TM  
researchers are shallow preludes of higher states of consciousness.  
This is hardly surprising since both TM/TMSPers and TM teachers are  
never really given any further stages of meditation beyond the most  
rudimentary (although one could say the original night technique is an  
exception).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

Richard M wrote:

 Edg - I think Yahoo's editor sucks. 

 I try to improve on it by using my text editor to compose 
 (http://www.editpadpro.com/). I set 72 chars line length and use the 
 option to convert line wrapping to line breaks. Then I paste that back 
 to Yahoo.

 But far all I know my posts are crap when viewed in folks' email 
 clients (er...I mean look like crap).
Looks fine in Thunderbird.   Thunderbird is set to a line wrap but one 
won't see it until it is posted as it does that on Send.   Technically 
no one should have to bother with line breaks except for paragraphs.  
The technology has been around a long time to do that automatically.   
We probably need to redesign the way the previous posts are handled and 
probably someone has but it hasn't caught on yet.

As for Edg's mental health he is probably a bit high strung (vata) and 
needs to calm down a bit and everything will be fine but he isn't the 
only one with that malady here and it isn't always expressed the same way.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Single-Payer National Health Insurance

The only thing I ask about a single payer system is to be able to 
control my own program instead of some idiot whose dad or mom helped him 
or her get through medical school (and I don't mean financially).

do.rflex wrote:
 Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public 
 or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care 
 remains largely private.

 Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet 
 inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the 
 industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly 
 in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant 
 mortality and immunization rates. 

 Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their 
 entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured 
 and millions more inadequately covered.

 The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because 
 we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. 

 Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing 
 to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing 
 departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and 
 hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the 
 bureaucracy. 

 Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of 
 Americans' health dollars.

 Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The 
 potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough 
 to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we 
 already do.

 Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically 
 necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, 
 mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug 
 and medical supply costs. 

 Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would 
 regain autonomy over patient care.

 Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary 
 or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. 
 Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health 
 facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional 
 health planning boards.

 A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and 
 recapturing their administrative waste. 

 Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently 
 paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through 
 negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

 ~~ Physicians for a National Health Program
 Much more at link: ttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sexy Time

2009-05-06 Thread satvadude108

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

 
 I am making the points that 1. doing business of merit in a coffee shop
 is going to be a rare event, 2. given a lot of foot traffic it is
 certain that the weak ones will be a significant portion of that
 traffic, 3. and that predators can be found in sheep's clothing.
 

You have moved into a mind-state that 
is more than just a little creepy Edg.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Ron Paul Revolution Sweeping the GOP

2009-05-06 Thread off_world_beings



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

 To insulting  ignorant to answer such a querry on a # of grounds

  the title is Col. I take little credit for the title for the senate
was
 democratic at the confirmation of myself.
 I assure U I read  write however.

 But more important I assure U never lost a valued soldier save for
 breakfast.

 A soldier hates war the most of all for they experienced it.

Correct me if I am wrong Colonel, but you supported Bush, the Neocons,
and all their wars did you not.

OffWorld




 In a message dated 5/6/2009 12:04:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
 no_re...@yahoogroups.com writes:



 Sergeant Leeds?  why is a warmonger like you interested in an
extreme
 pacififist environmentalist like Ron Paul?
 OffWorld
 --- In _fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com_
 (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , WLeed3@ wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
  
  From: no-reply@
  To: wleed3@
  Sent: 5/5/2009 7:09:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
  Subj: Ron Paul Revolution Sweeping the GOP
 
 
 
 
 
  May 5, 2009
 
 
  Dear Friend of Liberty,
 
  With each passing day, Ron Paul is winning people over to the cause
of
  Federal Reserve transparency and sound money.
 
  More and more Congressmen have been signing onto Dr.
PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s Audit
 the Fed
  bill, HR 1207, and it is now up to a whopping 124 cosponsors.
 
  That cosponsor list now includes over half of the House Republican
 Caucus.
  Dr. Paul is truly leading the GOP back to its roots of sound money
and
  fiscal conservatism.
 
  In fact, The Washington IndependentÃ¢â¬â¢s David Weigel just
wrote an
 important
  article about how Ron PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s message is resonating with
Republican
  lawmakers. All I can say is, It's about time!
  _Click here to read the article -- Ã¢â¬ÅRon Paul's Economic
Theories
 Winning
  GOP ConvertsÃ¢â¬Â_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596173:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F\
0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596173:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0\
CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F) ) .
 
  And today, Dr. Paul proved the case for Federal Reserve transparency
to
  people across America by _grilling Ben Bernanke on national
television_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F\
0CD87FF4B58_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0\
CD87FF4B58)
  286178279D4827F) .
 
 
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F\
0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0\
CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F) )
 
  Chairman Ben is running scared now that HR 1207 is gaining steam. He
 even
  tried to appease Dr. Paul by offering transparency on everything
except
  monetary policy -- the Fed's sole function!
 
  It is clear we are winning this fight, and I believe that ultimately
we
  will see it through to victory. But this is no time to rest on our
 laurels.
 
  Keep writing and calling your congressman if he has not already
  cosponsored HR 1207 (_click here to find out_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596175:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F\
0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596175:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0\
CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F) ) ). Circulate
  more petitions and Audit the Fed literature to your friends and
 neighbors to
  recruit them to this winning effort.
 
  Thank you for all you have done and all you will do. With your
 continued
  support, Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty will return the GOP to
its
  conservative roots, and America back to its founding principles.
 
  In Liberty,
 
  John Tate
  President, Campaign for Liberty
 
  P.S. Unlike the Fed, Campaign for Liberty cannot print money out of
 thin
  air. Only your ongoing financial support allows us to do the work we
 do.
  _Please click here to donate to Campaign for Liberty_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596176:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F\
0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596176:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0\
CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F) )
  .
  To unsubscribe from future Campaign for Liberty e-mails, _click
here_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/phase2/survey1/survey.htm?CID=nottaiactio\
n=update_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/phase2/survey1/survey.htm?CID=nottaiaction\
=update) 
  _eemail=wleed3@_mh=5012f4c1a9b4a2caa1cd56f9392c5199_
 (mailto:eemail=wleed3@_mh=5012f4c1a9b4a2caa1cd56f9392c5199) ) .
  You were added to our system on October 18, 2008. For more
 information,
  _click here_
 

(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/subscribe/source.htm?c=bhaQyXdmMRSqoemail\
=wleed3@cid=57690dd0ad743be205056877a1fe8fe3_

(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/subscribe/source.htm?c=bhaQyXdmMRSqoemail=\
wleed3@cid=57690dd0ad743be20
 5056877a1fe8fe3) ) .
 
  (_http://www.bluehornet.com/_ (http://www.bluehornet.com/) )
 
 
  **Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near
you
 now.

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on Rachael Maddow show

2009-05-06 Thread off_world_beings


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

 Ron Paul was very good today on Rachel Maddow's radio show.   He
pretty
 much nails it but to get broader support has to clarify his positions
on a
 corporatism. 


Ron Paul on Rachael Maddow show --- good stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDR0OxVdsAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDR0OxVdsAo



OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

2009-05-06 Thread FFL PostCount

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat May 02 00:00:00 2009
End Date (UTC): Sat May 09 00:00:00 2009
500 messages as of (UTC) Thu May 07 00:09:22 2009

46 authfriend jst...@panix.com
44 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
41 TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com
33 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net
30 grate.swan no_re...@yahoogroups.com
25 sparaig lengli...@cox.net
24 ruthsimplicity no_re...@yahoogroups.com
22 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
20 Richard J. Williams willy...@yahoo.com
18 enlightened_dawn11 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
18 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com
17 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com
15 dhamiltony2k5 dhamiltony...@yahoo.com
14 off_world_beings no_re...@yahoogroups.com
13 bob_brigante no_re...@yahoogroups.com
13 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com
12 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com
10 shempmcgurk shempmcg...@netscape.net
10 satvadude108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
10 lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net
 7 geezerfreak geezerfr...@yahoo.com
 7 Richard M compost...@yahoo.co.uk
 7 Nelson nelsonriddle2...@yahoo.com
 7 BillyG. wg...@yahoo.com
 6 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 4 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com
 3 William108 william10...@yahoo.com
 3 wle...@aol.com
 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com
 2 beno beno mynameisb...@yahoo.com
 2 Tom azg...@yahoo.com
 2 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com
 1 uns_tressor uns_tres...@yahoo.ca
 1 tkrystofiak kry...@natel.net
 1 metoostill metoost...@yahoo.com
 1 drpetersutphen drpetersutp...@yahoo.com
 1 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com
 1 Patrick Gillam jpgil...@yahoo.com
 1 Mike Doughney m...@doughney.com
 1 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com
 1 Marek Reavis reavisma...@sbcglobal.net
 1 Joe Smith msilver1...@yahoo.com
 1 Hugo richardhughes...@hotmail.com
 1 min.pige min.p...@yahoo.com

Posters: 44
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] Trance 101

The Jerusalem Post covers TM and it's putsch into schools:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1cid=1239710826837pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

LINK
Trance 101

Apr. 30, 2009
Mel Bezalel , THE JERUSALEM POST
It's a little bit like when milk is boiling over, you can take a drop
of cold water and dip it in, and it all settles down. When stress
begins to build up, it erupts into violence.

Perhaps it isn't surprising that when international director and raja
(administrator) of Transcendental Meditation in Israel, Kingsley
Brooks, talks about the practice in which he's been involved for 35
years, he speaks using elusive terms and near-constant metaphor. After
all, the specifics of the practice are only revealed to those who
train in it - which requires three preliminary steps and four sessions
spread over four consecutive days, taught only by qualified
Transcendental Meditation teachers.

(...)

Many critics of TM take issue with the movement's supposedly non-
religious standpoint, taking issue specifically with the allusions to
Hindu gods that appear in the TM puja - initiation ceremony. Hindu
gods such as Shakti, Krishna and Vishnu are all mentioned in the
private ceremony, in Sanskrit, and some say their personal mantras
include them, too. Bob Roth, spokesperson for the international TM
movement and national director of expansion, states that the Hindu
connection is purely cultural however: The culture goes back
thousands of years, and it's nonsense to say that mantras are names of
gods - 100 percent absolute nonsense. It just creates fear and there
is no basis to it whatsoever.

One TM critic is Mitch Kapor, who founded Lotus Software and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, the international non-profit advocacy
organization. Kapor was involved with TM for seven years until 1976
and trained as a TM teacher. TM is heavily promoted as a
scientifically-validated, secular method of stress reduction, says
Kapor, whereas in fact the TM technique is inextricably bound up in a
religious Hindu tradition, as is obvious to anyone who considers the
mandatory TM initiation ceremony and the supposedly secret mantras.
Proponents of TM twist themselves into pretzels to deny or explain
away these inconvenient facts, but the real reason they do such things
is as part of a drive to recruit as many people as possible into the
TM movement. Kapor has strong objections to the program being taught
in schools, despite initially experiencing some relaxation benefits
from TM himself. Kapor believes that the twice-daily sessions being
introduced in schools are designed to recruit members to the movement,
who will then become much more involved.

THOSE WHO do immerse themselves in the movement often go on to become
TM teachers and many practice an advanced technique known as
rounding - intensive meditation that can last for several hours at a
time. It is with rounding that more issues reportedly surface with
regard to physical and mental side-effects, though the movement
officially states there are none, pointing again to its store of 600
studies.

Past practitioners of TM have publicly spoken out about the alleged
side-effects, including American social worker John Knapp, who joined
the TM movement in 1972. Although Knapp speaks with 23 years of his
own experience in TM, his role as a social worker specializing in
recovery from toxic groups, abusive churches and cults and his website
about the alleged problems of TM, mean that he is in frequent contact
with those suffering with problems related to their experience with
the technique. After signing up for TM to boost his grades at the age
of 18, Knapp recalls that he had a cultic relationship with the
organization. Soon, Knapp became more involved with TM and began
practicing rounding. I was spending so much time and money on TM that
other very important areas of my life were being completely
neglected, he says. During the time I was most involved, for about
20 years I only saw my family a handful of times. Although he is
clear to state that it wasn't a directive from the organization, he
says it was a non-stated judgment.

Knapp says he suffered several side-effects from his intensive
meditation practice, such as head-shaking (which he occasionally still
experiences), disassociation or spacing out, problems with his
memory and a movement where his head would rapidly flip left and he'd
feel an energy surge in his spine. On visiting the doctor, it was
suggested that he'd developed a kind of Tourette 's syndrome. Knapp
says that past TM practitioners contacting him have also reported
involuntary twitching, grimacing, shouting and other tick-like behavior.

Mentioning difficulties with the meditation was difficult in the
movement, explains Knapp, because to bring up any, what they called
'negativity,' meant that you were likely to be

[FairfieldLife] Get out the vote! (Re: Sexy Time)

2009-05-06 Thread Marek Reavis

Edg, thank you for the kind words.  You have a raw honesty that is wholly 
admirable.  And as you've pointed out in earlier posts, it takes some time to 
become accustomed to the personalities that populate this forum.  Some of my 
own early impressions of posters have softened over time.  It's relatively easy 
for me to accept people on their own terms and to learn how it is that they 
wish to be perceived.  

Most folks want to be liked and esteemed.  I look for what's estimable and 
likable and validate that.  I don't value discord and cavil, and I avoid 
argument for it's own sake.  

I appreciate both yours and Turq's contributions to FFL; you're both good guys 
in my estimation.

Marek

**



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

 Marek,
 
 Aw, Marek, I'm such a sucker for your equanimity. Honestly, I swoon at your 
 clarity. Ya makes my good parts vibrate like puppy tails.
 
 You've had to gently grab my elbow more than once here, and you're good at it.
 
 Confession: Turq's energy triggers me.  I just don't like his way of 
 slapping anyone's face anytime he wants to and then running away from the 
 discussion and putting his fingers in his ears.  Not that he does it every 
 time, not that I don't do this too, but that he has done it often enough -- 
 such that I should have, by now had a forehead slapping epiphany and learned 
 to simply stay away from him.
 
 And there's the rub, I don't -- he still can say things which trigger me. I 
 give him that power. That's a tell that I'm still attempting to resolve my 
 inner roilings that can find me indulging in sublimating and projecting the 
 negativity of my past into some real life situation in hopes that an outer 
 resolution will give hints at how to handle the inner conflicts.  In effect, 
 I toss it out there so that I can get it off my front burner in here.
 
 Not that I haven't confessed as much previously, and not that anyone will 
 consider my past in any way that is as balanced as your perusals of me, but 
 it sure would do me some personal good if folks would take my concepts 
 instead of my barbs as their talking points.  But, yeah, my acidity can make 
 it almost impossible to do just that.
 
 When I snark about Turq's predatory ways, I'm pointing to something in his 
 life that I see in almost everyone's life -- including my own.  
 
 Not that we're all cafe droolers, but that we are all capable of wearing 
 masks to the detriment of others.  
 
 If I am projecting my own predatory dynamics upon a 
 Turq-who-is-almost-wholly-innocent-of-such-charges, what of it?  That's 
 something I should deal with, yes, but what of the issue of predation in 
 general?
 
 As a writer, I fail at delivering the concepts if I am dressing them up with 
 an untoward specificity that doesn't jive with the readers. I'm seen to be 
 not only trying to discuss an issue, but I'm also pandering to some personal 
 attack agenda.  So, instead of trying to get a good discussion going, my 
 striking out with such ridiculous overkill burdens the discussion such that 
 responders cannot avoid handling my excesses instead of the concepts I've 
 hyped. Yeah, I get it.
 
 I could write about George Bush's marauding, but there's thousands of 
 bloggers with great insight and writing skills who have adequately 
 deconstructed his brand of evil.  But try to find bloggers who see in 
 themselves that same evil.  Easy to just attack Bush and ignore how it is 
 that we are so certain he has erred stupendously.
 
 It would be incredible if most folks could easily see their inner Bush, but I 
 think it is much easier to imagine folks seeing that they are not unlike the 
 scoundrel aspects of Turq's personality.  Smaller sins make the burden of 
 recognizing resonance lighter.  
 
 With 2/3rds of the world getting less than two dollars a day, it's hard to 
 get someone to say, I'm part of that.  My mind has abetted that crime.  But 
 the same folks will have an easier time seeing themselves more clearly when 
 they pass by a homeless person asking for donations with a wave of a rusty 
 coffee can. Harder, then, to slip into some rationalization.
 
 Ten years ago, I was so humbled by this young boy I read about in the news.
 
 This kid was with his father, and they saw some homeless person, and the kid 
 asked his dad about the situation.  At some point, the kid cut to the chase 
 in a way that, to my thinking, had the power to humble the haught of most 
 elitists.  He simply asked his father if he could go home and get that extra 
 blanket out of the closet and give it to this shivering man on the streets.  
 It melted his father's heart on the spot.  The kid was saying, This I can 
 do.  This will help. This is easy. This is simple. I have the power to help 
 someone in an immediate and significant way.
 
 Well, the father, what could he do?  Here was a guy who had probably passed 
 hundreds of homeless folks out there street begging and never had

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sexy Time

2009-05-06 Thread Sal Sunshine


On May 6, 2009, at 6:43 PM, satvadude108 wrote:


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



I am making the points that 1. doing business of merit in a coffee  
shop

is going to be a rare event, 2. given a lot of foot traffic it is
certain that the weak ones will be a significant portion of that
traffic, 3. and that predators can be found in sheep's clothing.




You have moved into a mind-state that
is more than just a little creepy Edg.


No kidding.! Now it's not just Barry,
it's any guy sitting in a coffee house
without a woman who's a predator.
Edg's mind-state is a perfect example
of First they came for the socialists...
It must be tough being him.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul off world his reqest 4 COL Leeds beliefs no more2said by me here now!

2009-05-06 Thread WLeed3

Ur incorrect. 
 
In note further right  wrong refer to morality  its NOT imorral  for U to 
be incorect or in error in the stating of what U may feel are  past or even 
beliefs. Not sure I know them myself they constantly change.
 
If U would communicate with me in a more positive civil  polite  manor  U 
may better do so between U  I  not in this public form  FF life. I will 
galdly exchange my Tel # for such. Especially if U desire to  know my persent 
beliefs. How that may assist U I know not but would share  them.
 
 I note just one aspect of those central beliefs allowed me  to stand 2 
times as an elector in my N.York State congressional  district for the Natural 
Law party ,or NLP know on the NY state ballot as the  Independence party.  I 
have not supported ALL the party stands but enough  to stand in opposition 
to 8 other parties on the ballot in the 29 Th. I did not  agree in total 
with that platform then or now. That is but one area of then core  belief or 
opinions held the some I may hold presently.
 
I am constantly changing or refining my belief systems  am  willing to 
change most all of them when more learned in each area. One is I  try not with 
out some lack of success to demean another on a public from but as  in the 
army  life so correct or up braid others actions or  non actions behind 
closed doors unless in court. 
 
I feel  corrently hold that meditation TM but not the TMO has  give me  
my world as I see it much  continues to do so. I presently  hold subject to 
more rigorous science in the positive affects of large groups of  people 
doing meditations together all kinds or systems to get to that 4 Th state  
helps the individual meditation  ohter about that meditator  I  persently 
hold 
that the TM sidhi practice large groups assists in bringing  peace. I am a 
vedantist  fell at peresent that we all are one in the  silince. the 
consciouness in me is altimately connected to U  all the  universe or SELFS.
 
 
  

 From: no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to:  FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent:  5/6/2009 8:10:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd:  Ron Paul Revolution Sweeping the GOP





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

  To insulting  ignorant to answer such a querry on a # of grounds 
  
  the title is Col. I take little credit for the title for the  senate 
was 
 democratic at the confirmation of myself.
 I assure  U I read  write however. 
 
 But more important I assure U  never lost a valued soldier save for 
 breakfast.
 
 A  soldier hates war the most of all for they experienced it. 
Correct me if I am wrong Colonel,  but you supported Bush, the Neocons, and 
all their wars did you  not. 
OffWorld 

 
 
 In a message dated 5/6/2009 12:04:17 A.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
 no_re...@yahoogroups.com writes:
  
 
 
 Sergeant Leeds?  why is a warmonger like you  interested in an 
extreme 
 pacififist environmentalist like Ron Paul?  
 OffWorld 
 --- In _fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com_ 
  (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , WLeed3@ wrote:
 
   
  
  
  
   
  From: no-reply@
   To: wleed3@
  Sent: 5/5/2009 7:09:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time
  Subj: Ron Paul Revolution Sweeping the GOP
   
  
  
  
  
  May 5,  2009
  
  
  Dear Friend of Liberty,
   
  With each passing day, Ron Paul is winning people over to  the cause of 
  Federal Reserve transparency and sound  money.
  
  More and more Congressmen have been signing  onto Dr. PaulÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 
Audit 
 the Fed 
  bill, HR 1207, and  it is now up to a whopping 124 cosponsors. 
  
  That  cosponsor list now includes over half of the House Republican 
 Caucus.  
  Dr. Paul is truly leading the GOP back to its roots of sound  money and 
  fiscal conservatism.
  
  In  fact, The Washington Independent¢a‚¬a„¢s David Weigel just wrote 
an 
  important 
  article about how Ron PaulÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s message is  resonating with 
Republican 
  lawmakers. All I can say is, It's  about time! 
  _Click here to read the article -- Ã¢â‚¬ÅRon  Paul's Economic Theories 
 Winning 
  GOP ConvertsÃ¢â‚¬Â_  
  
  
(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596173:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_
  
  
(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596173:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F)
  ) .
  
  And today, Dr. Paul proved the case for Federal  Reserve transparency 
to 
  people across America by _grilling Ben  Bernanke on national 
television_ 
  
  
(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58_
  
  
(http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58)
  
  286178279D4827F) .
  
  
   
  
(_http://echo4.bluehornet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F_
  
  (http://echo4.blueho
rnet.com/ct/4596174:5427620422:m:4:315552929:504B0F0CD87FF4B58286178279D4827F)  
)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trance 101

2009-05-06 Thread shempmcgurk

This post harkens back to the excellent post by Barry Wright a few weeks ago 
when he hypothesized what a school-age kid would do upon the introduction of TM 
into his or her school...and Barry went through the exercise of what he or she 
would find on the internet and the questions that would arise.

Anyone have the link to that post?



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

 The Jerusalem Post covers TM and it's putsch into schools:
 
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1cid=1239710826837pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 
 LINK
 Trance 101
 
 Apr. 30, 2009
 Mel Bezalel , THE JERUSALEM POST
 It's a little bit like when milk is boiling over, you can take a drop  
 of cold water and dip it in, and it all settles down. When stress  
 begins to build up, it erupts into violence.
 
 Perhaps it isn't surprising that when international director and raja  
 (administrator) of Transcendental Meditation in Israel, Kingsley  
 Brooks, talks about the practice in which he's been involved for 35  
 years, he speaks using elusive terms and near-constant metaphor. After  
 all, the specifics of the practice are only revealed to those who  
 train in it - which requires three preliminary steps and four sessions  
 spread over four consecutive days, taught only by qualified  
 Transcendental Meditation teachers.
 
 (...)
 
 Many critics of TM take issue with the movement's supposedly non- 
 religious standpoint, taking issue specifically with the allusions to  
 Hindu gods that appear in the TM puja - initiation ceremony. Hindu  
 gods such as Shakti, Krishna and Vishnu are all mentioned in the  
 private ceremony, in Sanskrit, and some say their personal mantras  
 include them, too. Bob Roth, spokesperson for the international TM  
 movement and national director of expansion, states that the Hindu  
 connection is purely cultural however: The culture goes back  
 thousands of years, and it's nonsense to say that mantras are names of  
 gods - 100 percent absolute nonsense. It just creates fear and there  
 is no basis to it whatsoever.
 
 One TM critic is Mitch Kapor, who founded Lotus Software and the  
 Electronic Frontier Foundation, the international non-profit advocacy  
 organization. Kapor was involved with TM for seven years until 1976  
 and trained as a TM teacher. TM is heavily promoted as a  
 scientifically-validated, secular method of stress reduction, says  
 Kapor, whereas in fact the TM technique is inextricably bound up in a  
 religious Hindu tradition, as is obvious to anyone who considers the  
 mandatory TM initiation ceremony and the supposedly secret mantras.  
 Proponents of TM twist themselves into pretzels to deny or explain  
 away these inconvenient facts, but the real reason they do such things  
 is as part of a drive to recruit as many people as possible into the  
 TM movement. Kapor has strong objections to the program being taught  
 in schools, despite initially experiencing some relaxation benefits  
 from TM himself. Kapor believes that the twice-daily sessions being  
 introduced in schools are designed to recruit members to the movement,  
 who will then become much more involved.
 
 THOSE WHO do immerse themselves in the movement often go on to become  
 TM teachers and many practice an advanced technique known as  
 rounding - intensive meditation that can last for several hours at a  
 time. It is with rounding that more issues reportedly surface with  
 regard to physical and mental side-effects, though the movement  
 officially states there are none, pointing again to its store of 600  
 studies.
 
 Past practitioners of TM have publicly spoken out about the alleged  
 side-effects, including American social worker John Knapp, who joined  
 the TM movement in 1972. Although Knapp speaks with 23 years of his  
 own experience in TM, his role as a social worker specializing in  
 recovery from toxic groups, abusive churches and cults and his website  
 about the alleged problems of TM, mean that he is in frequent contact  
 with those suffering with problems related to their experience with  
 the technique. After signing up for TM to boost his grades at the age  
 of 18, Knapp recalls that he had a cultic relationship with the  
 organization. Soon, Knapp became more involved with TM and began  
 practicing rounding. I was spending so much time and money on TM that  
 other very important areas of my life were being completely  
 neglected, he says. During the time I was most involved, for about  
 20 years I only saw my family a handful of times. Although he is  
 clear to state that it wasn't a directive from the organization, he  
 says it was a non-stated judgment.
 
 Knapp says he suffered several side-effects from his intensive  
 meditation practice, such as head-shaking (which he occasionally still  
 experiences), disassociation or spacing out, problems with his  
 memory and a movement where his head would rapidly flip

[FairfieldLife] Re: Lynch concert raised one million

2009-05-06 Thread bob_brigante

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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  I was trying to figure out how a concert with top seats at $500 and a
  hall capacity of 6000 could raise three million (
  http://snipurl.com/hiae2 http://snipurl.com/hiae2   [philanthropy_com]
  ). Today's MUM Review says it's more like one million:
  
  http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/ http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/
  
  1. McCartney Concert a Success: Raises Funds, Spurs Interest
  
  The benefit concert by Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, and a
  host
  of other top-name performers was a great success, raising over $1
  million,
 
 

 Eh, as a direct fund-raise, I wouldn't call that a big success. OTOH, as PR
 it might be quite effective.
 
 Lawson




Heck, the concert got many millions in favorable publicity, which dwarfs the 
tik take by many factors of ten.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trance 101

So, do we call them pretzel heads now?


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

 The Jerusalem Post covers TM and it's putsch into schools:
 
 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1cid=1239710826837pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 
 LINK
 Trance 101
 
 Apr. 30, 2009
 Mel Bezalel , THE JERUSALEM POST
 It's a little bit like when milk is boiling over, you can take a drop  
 of cold water and dip it in, and it all settles down. When stress  
 begins to build up, it erupts into violence.
 
 Perhaps it isn't surprising that when international director and raja  
 (administrator) of Transcendental Meditation in Israel, Kingsley  
 Brooks, talks about the practice in which he's been involved for 35  
 years, he speaks using elusive terms and near-constant metaphor. After  
 all, the specifics of the practice are only revealed to those who  
 train in it - which requires three preliminary steps and four sessions  
 spread over four consecutive days, taught only by qualified  
 Transcendental Meditation teachers.
 
 (...)
 
 Many critics of TM take issue with the movement's supposedly non- 
 religious standpoint, taking issue specifically with the allusions to  
 Hindu gods that appear in the TM puja - initiation ceremony. Hindu  
 gods such as Shakti, Krishna and Vishnu are all mentioned in the  
 private ceremony, in Sanskrit, and some say their personal mantras  
 include them, too. Bob Roth, spokesperson for the international TM  
 movement and national director of expansion, states that the Hindu  
 connection is purely cultural however: The culture goes back  
 thousands of years, and it's nonsense to say that mantras are names of  
 gods - 100 percent absolute nonsense. It just creates fear and there  
 is no basis to it whatsoever.
 
 One TM critic is Mitch Kapor, who founded Lotus Software and the  
 Electronic Frontier Foundation, the international non-profit advocacy  
 organization. Kapor was involved with TM for seven years until 1976  
 and trained as a TM teacher. TM is heavily promoted as a  
 scientifically-validated, secular method of stress reduction, says  
 Kapor, whereas in fact the TM technique is inextricably bound up in a  
 religious Hindu tradition, as is obvious to anyone who considers the  
 mandatory TM initiation ceremony and the supposedly secret mantras.  
 Proponents of TM twist themselves into pretzels to deny or explain  
 away these inconvenient facts, but the real reason they do such things  
 is as part of a drive to recruit as many people as possible into the  
 TM movement. Kapor has strong objections to the program being taught  
 in schools, despite initially experiencing some relaxation benefits  
 from TM himself. Kapor believes that the twice-daily sessions being  
 introduced in schools are designed to recruit members to the movement,  
 who will then become much more involved.
 
 THOSE WHO do immerse themselves in the movement often go on to become  
 TM teachers and many practice an advanced technique known as  
 rounding - intensive meditation that can last for several hours at a  
 time. It is with rounding that more issues reportedly surface with  
 regard to physical and mental side-effects, though the movement  
 officially states there are none, pointing again to its store of 600  
 studies.
 
 Past practitioners of TM have publicly spoken out about the alleged  
 side-effects, including American social worker John Knapp, who joined  
 the TM movement in 1972. Although Knapp speaks with 23 years of his  
 own experience in TM, his role as a social worker specializing in  
 recovery from toxic groups, abusive churches and cults and his website  
 about the alleged problems of TM, mean that he is in frequent contact  
 with those suffering with problems related to their experience with  
 the technique. After signing up for TM to boost his grades at the age  
 of 18, Knapp recalls that he had a cultic relationship with the  
 organization. Soon, Knapp became more involved with TM and began  
 practicing rounding. I was spending so much time and money on TM that  
 other very important areas of my life were being completely  
 neglected, he says. During the time I was most involved, for about  
 20 years I only saw my family a handful of times. Although he is  
 clear to state that it wasn't a directive from the organization, he  
 says it was a non-stated judgment.
 
 Knapp says he suffered several side-effects from his intensive  
 meditation practice, such as head-shaking (which he occasionally still  
 experiences), disassociation or spacing out, problems with his  
 memory and a movement where his head would rapidly flip left and he'd  
 feel an energy surge in his spine. On visiting the doctor, it was  
 suggested that he'd developed a kind of Tourette 's syndrome. Knapp  
 says that past TM practitioners contacting him have also reported  
 involuntary twitching, grimacing, shouting and other tick-like behavior.

[FairfieldLife] Edg proves his true colors (was Re: Sexy Time)

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

 Edg - I think Yahoo's editor sucks. 
 
 I try to improve on it by using my text editor to compose 
 (http://www.editpadpro.com/). I set 72 chars line length and 
 use the option to convert line wrapping to line breaks. Then 
 I paste that back to Yahoo.
 
 But far all I know my posts are crap when viewed in folks' 
 email clients (er...I mean look like crap).

Richard, your posts look great for me, 
at any screen resolution or font size. 
The procedure you mention above is one 
that many folks who have been around the 
Internet block use on discussion groups, 
or they simply limit themselves to short 
line lengths using hard returns the way 
I do, no matter what editor they use.

The reasons for doing this aren't neces-
sarily limitations in the editors but in
the way that messages are processed. Newbs
and Internet tyros don't understand that
when they type stuff in using word wrap,
the Internet nodes that forward that email
on to other nodes do not necessarily 
*preserve* that word wrap. They add hard 
line breaks after every perceived line, or 
arbitrarily, at 80 characters. This may 
work on some people's readers, if that 
person uses a small font, but creates 
shitty line breaks on others.

The problem is compounded when someone
replies. When quoted text is preceded by
a  symbol and a space, more shitty line
breaks occur. Get three or four replies
into it, like
this and you start getting garbage
like
 this that no one
wants to bother to read, much less
reply
 to.

Some writers are aware of the limitations
of the system and compensate for it by using
short line lengths and hard returns. It is
not that much more trouble for them, and it
generally provides a better-formatted output
for most readers. 

Some users are lulled into the belief that
such consideration isn't necessary because
they use smart mail readers like Thunder-
bird, which deconstructs each message and
adds a kind of artificial word wrap back
into it to compensate for these inadequacies
of the email process. Because their posts 
look good to them when they read them, they
think they look good to everyone else. But
even Thunderbird has its quirks, in that
when, for example, Bhairitu replies to a 
post he sees a blank line between the body
of the post he's replying to and his reply 
and we do not. So it's often difficult to
figure out where his comments start.

Not knowing how your posts appear to others
is the nerd counterpart of building your
website in one browser (for example, IE)
and assuming that it will look the same or
work the same in other browsers. It isn't
true, and such assumptions are often per-
ceived by users as the arrogance and lack
of caring about users that they are.

Such is the crap we have to put up with as
users because of the tech version of lineage.
Newer, smarter systems are built on older, 
dumber systems, and of necessity have to keep
supporting the older, dumber standards. 

In a way, it's like believing that mantra
meditation can only be taught using a puja
to propitiate gods and get them to zap
the mantra with woo woo rays. It's always 
been done that way, so there *must* have been 
some magical, mystical reason for it back at 
the beginning, so we have to preserve it.  :-)

The reality is that the Internet is made up
of a hodge-podge of nodes of differing ages
and differing intelligences and degrees of
smartness. (A lot like the members of FFL.) 
If one is courteous one compensates to some 
extent for the existence of the weakest nodes 
in the chain.

Just to provide a sense of balance, this is
an issue on every chat forum I've ever been
on. And one rule reigns supreme -- the biggest
offenders are generally the people who write 
the longest posts. The psychological reason
for this IMO is that most of them have never
had to write for an actual *audience* of 
readers, and thus don't have much respect
for readers. They're typing just because they
can; it's a form of egobabble. 

Some who write long posts (myself and a few
others here) have learned over time not to 
do this. That doesn't mean that anyone reads
our crap -- it's still often egobabble -- but
the few who do can at least read it without
having to piece it back together to try to 
make sense of something that may have made 
no sense to start with.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sexy Time