[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama event

[lurkernomore20002000]

For me, just the fact that he is not Bush, that there is not a Dick
Cheney in a position of power is good enough for me right now.  And I
also happen to feel that he is doing a pretty good job.  Obviously YMMV.
And I think Hillary Clinton is also doing a tremendous job.  I've said
it many times before-Bush viewed himself as a wartime president, and he
didn't seem to have an interest in anything else.  As I see it, all the
dire predictions of how the Iraq conflict would deteriorate, and how we
couldn't prosecute the conflict in Afganastan, how national security
would lapse,  have all been proven false.  And I think the primary
reason is that he is not running the wars from the oval office, but
rather they are being run from the Pentagon.  And national security is
and always will be a priority.  It's just that gone is the giant
manipulation through fear.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "andrasayer" sandraayer@ wrote:
> >
> > Ok, you're in love with Obama. Are you serious about the
> > enlightenment? He hired the former lawyer of Monsanto to
> > head the Food & Drug admin.(not to mention that he has not
> > been able to quit smoking).
>
> Not to mention a whole bunch of things that were odious
> to progressives when Bush did them, but don't seem to
> bother Obama's fans when he does them. Their equanimity
> is a wonder to behold.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama event

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "andrasayer"  wrote:
>
> Ok, you're in love with Obama. Are you serious about the
> enlightenment? He hired the former lawyer of Monsanto to
> head the Food & Drug admin.(not to mention that he has not
> been able to quit smoking).

Not to mention a whole bunch of things that were odious
to progressives when Bush did them, but don't seem to
bother Obama's fans when he does them. Their equanimity
is a wonder to behold.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The BBC: Saint who has lived without food, water for 70 yrs

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" 
wrote:
>
> don't know if this guy is genuine
> but believe it is possible
>
> in Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda writes about two
lady saints who did not take food for decades
> one was a Catholic nun whom I assume was investigated and watched by
the church
>
> but most of all I believe Yogananda
>
> and more recently, Mooji of www.mooji.org
> said that he knows personally a whole family,
> except for the youngest one, in South Brazil
> who are breatherians
>
> science cannot prove that something like this is not possible,
> therefore, anyone who wishes to relive that it is possible
> is basically saying this is my hypothesis
> and it remains to be proven one way or the other
Edg dismissed the story outright as an impossibility or a fraud.  Turq,
if I followed his line of reasoning, seemed to dismiss it as well.  I
mention those two as they were about the only people who commented on
the story.  I also read the account of Yogananda's.  I guess you either
believe that there are such things as miracles, (or apparant miracles,
as if they do exist, there must be other, uncovered laws which apply to
them), or you don't.  I don't immediately presume this story is a fraud.
But, I need to see subtantiation.


Just for fun, for those who don't buy into occurances that violate the
laws of physics, are the accounts of objects like cardboard getting
lodged in steel, during a tornado, also fraud.  I am not asking 
cynically.  I really don't know.  I suppose I could check it out online.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > The BBC's 2-minute video-report on an Indian saint who has lived
with no
> > food, no water, for over 70 years:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8652837.stm
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Obama's Taylor

[andrasayer]

New food safety bill could crush local food movement
by Chris HinyubSat, Apr 17th 2010Next week the Senate will vote on a measure 
that could potentially extinguish California's local food movement. Lobbied for 
by multinational agribusiness giants such as Cargill and Monsanto, as well as 
supported by the pharmaceutical industry, The Food Safety Modernization Act 
would impose financially crippling and practically useless regulations on 
family farms and small-scale food processors according to opponents.

The bill will require all food growers, regardless of size to keep accessible 
records, have more accountable monitoring and traceability protocols, and 
impose a blanket $500 registration fee. This means costly radio frequency 
identification (RFID chips) implanted in livestock as well as (according to the 
language of the bill) "science based" and "best practices" in agriculture will 
be mandated.

These practices can be arbitrarily determined by the FDA deputy commissioner 
for foods, Michael Taylor. Interestingly enough, before Taylor found himself in 
a leading position at the Food and Drug Administration, he went from being 
Monsanto's attorney, key in the deregulation of genetically modified organisms, 
to that company's vice president.

[FairfieldLife] Obama event

[andrasayer]

Ok, you're in love with Obama. Are you serious about the enlightenment? He 
hired the former lawyer of Monsanto to head the Food & Drug admin.(not to 
mention that he has not been able to quit smoking).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The BBC: Saint who has lived without food, water for 70 yrs

[anatol_zinc]

don't know if this guy is genuine
but believe it is possible

in Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda writes about two lady saints 
who did not take food for decades
one was a Catholic nun whom I assume was investigated and watched by the church

but most of all I believe Yogananda

and more recently, Mooji   of www.mooji.org
said that he knows personally a whole family,
except for the youngest one,  in South Brazil
who are breatherians

science cannot prove that something like this is not possible,
therefore, anyone who wishes to relive that it is possible
is basically saying this is my hypothesis
and it remains to be proven one way or the other 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> The BBC's 2-minute video-report on an Indian saint who has lived with no
> food, no water, for over 70 years:
>  
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8652837.stm
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[lurkernomore20002000]

New name atop the leaderboard. Oh yea.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>
> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): Sat May 01 00:00:00 2010
> End Date (UTC): Sat May 08 00:00:00 2010
> 90 messages as of (UTC) Sun May 02 23:53:57 2010
> 
> 15 lurkernomore20002000 
> 11 Rick Archer 
> 10 authfriend 
> 10 TurquoiseB 
>  5 wle...@...
>  5 Bhairitu 
>  4 cardemaister 
>  3 guyfawkes91 
>  3 ditzyklanmail 
>  3 Yifu Xero 
>  3 WillyTex 
>  3 Duveyoung 
>  3 "do.rflex" 
>  2 John 
>  1 yifuxero 
>  1 wayback71 
>  1 tartbrain 
>  1 raunchydog 
>  1 paultrunk 
>  1 nablusoss1008 
>  1 Sal Sunshine 
>  1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  1 David Hawthorne 
>  1 Buck 
> 
> Posters: 24
> 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] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat May 01 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat May 08 00:00:00 2010
90 messages as of (UTC) Sun May 02 23:53:57 2010

15 lurkernomore20002000 
11 Rick Archer 
10 authfriend 
10 TurquoiseB 
 5 wle...@aol.com
 5 Bhairitu 
 4 cardemaister 
 3 guyfawkes91 
 3 ditzyklanmail 
 3 Yifu Xero 
 3 WillyTex 
 3 Duveyoung 
 3 "do.rflex" 
 2 John 
 1 yifuxero 
 1 wayback71 
 1 tartbrain 
 1 raunchydog 
 1 paultrunk 
 1 nablusoss1008 
 1 Sal Sunshine 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 David Hawthorne 
 1 Buck 

Posters: 24
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] Who is the Yellow Jambhala?

[yifuxero]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=42929035420

[FairfieldLife] Re: The stalker score so far this week :-)

[authfriend]

Another couple corrections of Barry's lies here:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> THE CORRECTOR: 8 posts total, 6 of them "Get Barry" posts,
> or trying to slam him or "correct" him in some way.
> 
> Barry: 9 posts in total, none of them even *mentioning* 
> THE CORRECTOR

Actually, five of my six were in response to "Get Judy"
posts from Barry.

 unless she steps up to the plate and 
> identifies herself as one of the "spiritual slackers" I 
> wrote about generally,

As Barry knows, he included me among the "slackers" in
that post in his reference to people who talk about MMY's
teaching. He's also frequently accused me (falsely) of
never having had any spiritual experiences, so he was
also including me in that category.


> She really CAN'T think of anything to say unless she's 
> slamming someone or "correcting" them.

And as Barry knows, that's completely untrue, including
this posting week. Unless, of oourse, he wants to count
my post touting the "I Will Survive" video as "slamming"
Jesus. :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

Oh, yes, and *all nine* of Barry's posts so far this
week were slamming someone. All nine.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The stalker score so far this week :-)

[authfriend]

Notice how Barry HATES being corrected, so much so
that he *keeps count*?

How exactly does that square with his repeated claims
that he isn't attached to his POV and that he doesn't
give a shit what people think of him or say about him?

It doesn't. He is, and he does.

He claims not to understand why I and others call him
a phony, a fake, and a fraud.

This is why: because he pretends to be what he ain't
and pretends not to be what he is.

This has been Demonstration No. 6,831 of Why Barry Is
a Phony.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> THE CORRECTOR: 8 posts total, 6 of them "Get Barry" posts,
> or trying to slam him or "correct" him in some way.
> 
> Barry: 9 posts in total, none of them even *mentioning* 
> THE CORRECTOR unless she steps up to the plate and 
> identifies herself as one of the "spiritual slackers" I 
> wrote about generally, or agrees that she is a member of 
> this group, which I also wrote generally, thinking about 
> Shemp and Edg, actually:
> 
> > There is another group. People so jealous of
> > other people who *have* experienced such things
> > when they have not that they devote years of 
> > their lives to stalking them and demonizing
> > them every chance they get. :-)  :-)  :-)
> 
> This must be what choosing a profession in which you get 
> paid to correct other people's spelling and grammar *does* 
> to one after years of practicing it. 6 posts out of 8. 
> She really CAN'T think of anything to say unless she's 
> slamming someone or "correcting" them. 
> 
> What's the Sanskrit for "poverty of imagination?" Her 
> spiritual name should be that plus "-ananda."  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Messiah Moon's church to sell Wathington Times

[do.rflex]

The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung 
Moon[1], who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ 
and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission.[2][3] 

Bo Hi Pak, Moon's chief aide, was the founding president and the founding 
chairman of the board.[4] In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the 
Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That 
is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the 
world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda."[5] 

In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American 
people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in 
spreading the truth about God to the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times


Unification Church will put Washington Times up for sale

--Washington Times executives are negotiating to sell the newspaper, after the 
Rev. Sun Myung Moon's family cut off most of the annual subsidy of about $35 
million that has kept the Unification Church-backed paper afloat, company 
officials said.

Nicholas Chiaia, a member of the paper's two-man board of directors and 
president of the church-supported United Press International wire service, 
confirmed that the paper is actively on the market: "We recently entered into 
discussions with a number of parties interested in either purchasing or 
partnering with the Washington Times," he said in a statement to The Washington 
Post.

Current and former Times officials said one suitor has been the paper's former 
executive editor, John Solomon, who resigned in November 2009. Soon thereafter, 
they said, Solomon organized a group of investors to purchase the Times or 
launch a new multimedia outlet called The Washington Guardian. Times company 
officials said they are also in discussions with other potential investors.

Solomon, a former Washington Post reporter, declined to comment.

The negotiations follow months of turmoil at both the 28-year-old conservative 
daily and the business empire founded by Moon, 90, whose children are jostling 
for control over the church's myriad enterprises, which range from fisheries to 
arms manufacturing.

One of Moon's children, Justin Moon, who was chosen by his father to run many 
of the church's Asian businesses, has slashed the newspaper's annual subsidy, 
forcing the paper's executives, led by Moon's eldest son, Preston Moon, to 
search for deep pockets elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, the newspaper has hacked its newsroom staff by more than half, from 
225 in 2002 down to about 70 people, raised the paper's price and deliberately 
shrunk its circulation to cut costs, shed its metro and sports sections, and 
fired or pushed out several top executives, including its publisher earlier 
this week. Several reporters said most of the staffers are seeking to leave.

Full article here: 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002043.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[FairfieldLife] The stalker score so far this week :-)

[TurquoiseB]

THE CORRECTOR: 8 posts total, 6 of them "Get Barry" posts,
or trying to slam him or "correct" him in some way.

Barry: 9 posts in total, none of them even *mentioning* 
THE CORRECTOR unless she steps up to the plate and 
identifies herself as one of the "spiritual slackers" I 
wrote about generally, or agrees that she is a member of 
this group, which I also wrote generally, thinking about 
Shemp and Edg, actually:

> There is another group. People so jealous of
> other people who *have* experienced such things
> when they have not that they devote years of 
> their lives to stalking them and demonizing
> them every chance they get. :-)  :-)  :-)

This must be what choosing a profession in which you get 
paid to correct other people's spelling and grammar *does* 
to one after years of practicing it. 6 posts out of 8. 
She really CAN'T think of anything to say unless she's 
slamming someone or "correcting" them. 

What's the Sanskrit for "poverty of imagination?" Her 
spiritual name should be that plus "-ananda."  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy May Day!

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
>>> Would you go on strike if your Social
>>> Security benefits were reduced and your 
>>> income tax was increased? 
>>>
>>>   
> Bhairitu:
>   
>> Did you see the monky in the park yesterday?  
>>
>> 
> You're not even making any sense today. Is that
> your solution to the debt crises? Go on strike
> against the rich people.
You're supposed to decode the message before you reply.

[FairfieldLife] Re: THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> 0--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > http://theshiftmovie.com/
> 
> As for the claim in this teaser that "there is no
> leader, there is no spokesperson, no ideology," the
> first person you see onscreen is Will Arntz, the
> person who funded and produced and co-directed
> the "What The Bleep Do We Know" movie.
> 
> This identifies this film, like its predecessor,  as a
> project associated with and probably conceived of
> by the "channeling" teacher JZ Knight and her
> Ramtha's School of  Enlightenment
>  
> movement.
> THAT is the "movement" behind this, imply what
> they will about others.

Er, no, it's not, actually.

No doubt there are folks who've been involved with both
films because they share the same perspectives, but this
film doesn't appear to have any connection with JZ
Knight's group or with "What the Bleep," sorry.

But that isn't a recommendation.

For a taste of the, um, ethos behind the film, here's a
video message from the filmmaker, Rachel Marmorstein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBsIRhl5FHQ






 
> Not, to quote Seinfeld, that that's a Bad Thing.
> But that, together with the group's previous film,
> which has been criticized for misrepresenting science,
> 
> containing pseudoscience  ,
>    and
> has been described as
> quantum mysticism  , 
>  might
> mean that if you're a critical
> thinker you may have some reservations about the new
> film, and that if you're a TM TB you may love it.  :-)
> 
> The best thing about Will Arnst (he was still Bill when
> I knew him) was his taste in cars. He had a Ferrari 308
> GTS Spyder and a Lamborghini Countach that I lusted
> after. Suffice it to say that his taste in films and his
> abilities as a filmmaker were not -- and are not, IMO --
> on the same level. Just sayin'...
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:18 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> Hm, did Girish empty the accounts?
> I was hoping that with MMY gone (and no longer available to blackmail?),
he
> wouldn't be able to do that anymore.
>
Rick would you care to elaborate rather than just post innuendo. What did
Girish have on him?
Just a theory. I've often wondered whether Girish might have applied
pressure on MMY to send beaucoup bucks his way or else the rumors of MMY's
sexual dalliances might get out. Again, just a theory. Probably invalid.
Indians tend to take care of family.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The BBC: Saint who has lived without food, water for 70 yrs

[WillyTex]

Duveyoung:
> > ...bribery is the life blood of India.
> > 
lurk:
> Sounds like a pretty harsh, even bigoted judgement...
>
Maybe what Edg means is Indians as a group give and 
accept bribes - that's how they make a living. 

Maybe Edg wants to pass a law deporting all Indians 
from the U.S. because Indians all live off of bribery, 
which is illegal in the U.S. 

These Indians bribers should be forced to wear a sign
around their necks with the word 'Indian' stenciled
on it. That way, we wouldn't even have to ask them for 
their drivers license or passport - everyone knows 
that all Indians give and accept illegal bribes. 

You know that Edg doesn't want any Indian bribers up
in Wisconsin! He hates those Indian bribers!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy May Day!

[WillyTex]

> > Would you go on strike if your Social
> > Security benefits were reduced and your 
> > income tax was increased? 
> >
Bhairitu:
> Did you see the monky in the park yesterday?  
>
You're not even making any sense today. Is that
your solution to the debt crises? Go on strike
against the rich people.

Re: [FairfieldLife] THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

[ditzyklanmail]

How about http://thebullshitmovie.com?








From: Sal Sunshine 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 2 May, 2010 1:24:30 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

  
On May 2, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Rick Archer wrote:

> http://theshiftmovi e.com/

If it turns out to be really awful, can
we call it: http://theshitmovie .com/ ?

Sal


 

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi MMY Squaw Valley 1968 audio lectures

[Rick Archer]

http://www.hawaiisfishes.com/mmy/SqV68/SqV.htm 

[FairfieldLife] Re: THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

[TurquoiseB]

0--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://theshiftmovie.com/

As for the claim in this teaser that "there is no
leader, there is no spokesperson, no ideology," the
first person you see onscreen is Will Arntz, the
person who funded and produced and co-directed
the "What The Bleep Do We Know" movie.

This identifies this film, like its predecessor,  as a
project associated with and probably conceived of
by the "channeling" teacher JZ Knight and her
Ramtha's School of  Enlightenment
 
movement.
THAT is the "movement" behind this, imply what
they will about others.

Not, to quote Seinfeld, that that's a Bad Thing.
But that, together with the group's previous film,
which has been criticized for misrepresenting science,

containing pseudoscience  ,
   and
has been described as
quantum mysticism  , 
 might
mean that if you're a critical
thinker you may have some reservations about the new
film, and that if you're a TM TB you may love it.  :-)

The best thing about Will Arnst (he was still Bill when
I knew him) was his taste in cars. He had a Ferrari 308
GTS Spyder and a Lamborghini Countach that I lusted
after. Suffice it to say that his taste in films and his
abilities as a filmmaker were not -- and are not, IMO --
on the same level. Just sayin'...

Re: [FairfieldLife] THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 2, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Rick Archer wrote:

> http://theshiftmovie.com/

If it turns out to be really awful, can
we call it: http://theshitmovie.com/ ?

Sal

[FairfieldLife] THE SHIFT - A Movie Being Made by a Movement

[Rick Archer]

http://theshiftmovie.com/ 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Boobquake Followup, part 2

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> FWIW, Elie Wiesel once said that he'll never forgive God for 
> letting the Holocaust occur. Somehow, it appears that your 
> attitude is similar to Wiesel. But, in the long run, guess 
> who's going to win?

FWIW, I do not believe that such a thing as "God" exists,
and further suspect that those who believe in one are 
looking for a Cosmic Daddy Figure to take the responsi-
bility for running the universe off their own shoulders.

As for "winning," might I state for the record that any-
one who believes that human beings are in an adversarial 
relationship with the imaginary being they call "God" 
and that this imaginary being cares enough about human
beings to want to "win" in any contest between them
deserves the pathetic, paranoid life they probably lead. 

Are we clear now?

My post was *parodying* the "God mentality," not agreeing
with it, Dumbo. Maybe the presence of too many immodestly-
dressed women in your town has clouded your brain so much
that it no longer detect humor. Are you suffering from a
Boob Brainquake, John?  :-)


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > For those who sense of decency and moral outrage 
> > was...uh...more outraged by the recent failure of
> > God to smite the planet with earthquakes as 80,000+
> > women dressed immodestly a few days ago to test 
> > Him, have no fear. God has -- or is that hath? -- 
> > smitten.
> > 
> > True, he has shitty aim, and hath smitten the
> > wrong planet, but it's good to know He's not as
> > asleep at the wheel as many thought.
> > 
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/blizzard-on-saturn-is-so_n_559805.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Boobquake Followup, part 2

[John]

FWIW, Elie Wiesel once said that he'll never forgive God for letting the 
Holocaust occur.  Somehow, it appears that your attitude is similar to Wiesel.  
But, in the long run, guess who's going to win?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> For those who sense of decency and moral outrage 
> was...uh...more outraged by the recent failure of
> God to smite the planet with earthquakes as 80,000+
> women dressed immodestly a few days ago to test 
> Him, have no fear. God has -- or is that hath? -- 
> smitten.
> 
> True, he has shitty aim, and hath smitten the
> wrong planet, but it's good to know He's not as
> asleep at the wheel as many thought.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/blizzard-on-saturn-is-so_n_559805.html
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'

[ditzyklanmail]

Students can flock here: Tonight in Lawrence, Kansas
http://www.lawrence.com/events/2010/may/02/37600/






From: guyfawkes91 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 2 May, 2010 9:32:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM  only  to  'Survive'

  

> Anyone have news from Kansas? The part finished empty shell of "Maharishi 
> Central University" will be going up for sale as farmland sometime in the 
> next couple of years. 
> 
News from Kansas

http://tinyurl. com/34ewjk4

Looks like it's already gone back to being farmland, albeit organic farmland 
owned by the TMO. I wonder if the farmer has ever been paid for helping out, or 
if he has to pay an above market rent to farm there. 

Sounds like they're still clinging to the idea that it's all going to be OK 
when the economy turns and then they can take it out of hibernation and 
students will flock there. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Why Gurus Stay Single?

[Rick Archer]

Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller 
http://images.gocomics.com/images/email/frame-top.png
 
 Non Sequitur
<><>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy May Day!

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
> Bhairitu:
>   
>> People of the world unite against the rich...
>>
>> 
> This is the best you can do on Saturday night?
>
> You sound really jealous and paranoid of 'rich' 
> people. Why not get a job and make some money 
> yourself?
>
> So, who is going to bail out the Greek economy
> - rich people or poor people?
>
>   
>> ...word is that the US military has been 
>> training to quell similar riots in the US.
>>
>> 
> You sound really scared - got any defensive 
> plans? Would you go on strike if your Social
> Security benefits were reduced and your income
> tax was increased? Would you join a Tea Party 
> protest or what? 
>
> "Other governments have also over-indulged 
> themselves. If the current economic recovery 
> falters, sovereign debt crises are likely to 
> break out beyond the borders of Europe..."
>
> Read more:
>
> 'Greece a bad omen for others in debt'
> By Edward Chancellor
> Financial Times, May 2, 2010
> http://tinyurl.com/24grlsu

Did you see the monky in the park yesterday?  It was smiling at you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector

[authfriend]

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

> But back to your excellent question. Why should anyone
> who *does* have personal experience in these areas (as
> opposed to the spiritual slackers who do not) ever want
> to "prove" their personal experience?
> 
> First, that's a Fool's Errand. Can't be done. Subjective
> is subjective, and subjective it will remain, forever.
> 
> Second, why would they ever even want to TRY? What is
> to be *gained* from trying to convince someone of the
> "truth" or "validity" of one's own personal, subjective
> experiences? IMO, the best that one can *do* with such
> experiences is just to throw them out there and see
> whether anyone finds a resonance with them.
> 
> "Proving" things is for people who are trying to *sell*
> things. I -- and the people I admire -- merely share
> things, things that we have personally experienced.

As with so many of your little sermons, Barry, this
one would be *so* much more impressive if you weren't
vigorously trying to sell your ideas about how one can
tell who's a "spiritual slacker" and who isn't.

Not everyone, you see, believes that constantly 
boasting about one's purported spiritual experiences
qualifies one as a genuine seeker, nor that declining
to share one's experiences qualifies one as a "slacker."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> OK, as a free gift to everyone here, I pass along some
> invaluable spiritual advice.

Which may be worth exactly what we're paying for it.

Unsurprisingly, the "advice" in Barry's post
involves a number of failures of logic and even
of common sense.

First, it's absurd, of course, to suggest that a
person "doesn't have the right" to speak about
something, regardless of whether they have personal
experience of it. You're free to disbelieve them,
even to attempt to impugn their credibility, but
they have as much right to speak up as anyody else.

Second, the corollary is that a person who *does*
have direct personal experience of something has
the right *not* to speak up about it, regardless
of demands that they do so. Likewise, you have the
right to infer anything you like from their
refusal to talk about their experiences, including
that they have never actually had any. But that
you draw such an inference does not make it so.

Moreover, that a person claims to have had an
experience may or may not mean they have actually
had it. Only the person making the claim knows
whether it's accurate.

Bottom line, credibility issues are involved. The
credibility of reports of experiences, or of
conclusions drawn about such reports, or about 
the refusal to provide them, depends on the
reputation for credibility of the person making
them. It's common sense to doubt a person with a 
reputation for lying and to put credence in a
person with a reputation for telling the truth.

You can't "instantly detect" whether a person is
"speaking truth." The method Barry proposes is
by no means "foolproof," even when the person
applying it has the best of intentions.

And finally:

> * If the SS in question has claimed to know "What MMY
> teaches" or claimed to know something about the inner 
> workings of the TM movement, any other answer than
> personal, long-term experience working with MMY and
> *in* the TMO identifies that person as a SS.

As I've pointed out before, this is the *height* of
absurdity with reference to MMY's teaching, given
the trouble MMY went to to make his teaching as widely
available as possible to people who would never have
the benefit of personal contact with him. When so much
of his teaching is on the public record, any "claim to
know" what he taught can easily be verified (or 
debunked, as the case may be).

This piece of "advice" is valid only with regard to
teaching that is *not* on the public record and that
was available only to those who had "personal, long-
term experience working with MMY." But there's a
caveat: if such teaching isn't on the public record,
it's much more difficult, maybe even impossible in
some cases, to verify. Again credibility becomes an
issue with a person making claims about nonpublic
teachings, as well as accuracy of memory. The claims
of those who have been shown to be frequently
untruthful and who have demonstrated serious memory
problems may be considered unreliable.

When a verified public teaching appears to conflict
with the report of a nonpublic teaching that has also
been verified--e.g., by similar accounts from several
people--the conclusion is not that one or the other
teaching is more or less correct, but rather that MMY,
for whatever reason, taught *both*.

All the above is so obvious it's unclear why anybody
would attempt to preach to the contrary. But since
it's Barry doing so, it's not hard to figure out. It
has to do with how he defines himself and who his
"enemies" are.

Some of us might even see motivation and behavior
like his as criteria for "spiritual slackerhood."
Some of us feel that personal authenticity is one
of the primary criteria for being a legitimate
spiritual seeker. Being a phony is a
disqualification.

'Nuff said.





 It's not original with me,
> and is passed along the way I received it, as "open 
> source." You may use it without fee or license, and may
> pass it along to others if you find it useful. You may
> even take the original "advice source code" and modify
> it as you wish, and pass along the result, *as long as
> you keep it open source*, and do not attempt to profit
> from it.
> 
> It's a very simple test by which you can *instantly*
> detect whether the person you are speaking with -- in
> person or on the Internet -- is a spiritual slacker. 
> And it's foolproof. 
> 
> Before we start, it will help to establish a baseline,
> and define what I mean by "spiritual slacker" (SS).
> For the purposes of this free advice post, when I 
> refer to someone as a SS, I mean: "Someone who speaks
> authoritatively or with conviction or as if they were
> speaking the 'truth' about something *when they have
> never experienced the thing they're talking about 
> personally*." So, now that the term is defined, how 
> do you go about *detecting* someone like this?
> 
> Utterly simple. When they have finished making their
> pronouncements about the latest thing they're making
> pr

[FairfieldLife] Re: The BBC: Saint who has lived without food, water for 70 yrs

[lurkernomore20002000]

A couple comments

I don't doubt that to be the case.  However this doesn't appear to be
the classic bribe taking scenario
>
> > So, Indians are likely incapable of a honest inquiry about this?
>
> I would go further and say that people who are heavily
> invested in the *idea* of miracles are the *last* people
> on earth who want to "investigate" one. In many cases
> they are the last people who ever want to encounter one
> in real life. The way that they maintain their faith in
> the miracles is to always keep them in the realm of ideas,
> and the phenomena themselves safely in the realm of things
> that happen to other people.
I sort of did not get the impression in watching the 2 minute , that the
people investigating it, were heavily invested in the idea of miracles,
or trying to perpetuate the notion that they are real.
> As I have pointed out many times, the TMO could "prove"
> that something extraordinary (beyond expenditure of pure
> muscle effort) was happening in "yogic flying." They
> could do this simply and "once and for all" by picking
> their best flyers and filming them with slow-motion-
> capture cameras while "flying" on a water mattress. If
> the "flyer" can get off the surface of the water mattress,
> then it's not muscle effort. Done deal. Fait accompli.
>
> Has there ever been any interest in doing this? Of course
> not. If it *didn't* happen, they couldn't keep saying that
> something extraordinary was happening in "yogic flying"
> beyond simple muscle effort. And such a realization would
> be the first chink in their armor of belief.
>
> My point is simply that rational people (such as your-
> self, Lurk, and I'm serious about this) often ascribe
> motives to *irrational* people that they do not have,
> such as a desire to find out the "real truth" about
> things they are heavily invested in, belief-wise.  On the surface the
people investigating this thing seemed to be wanting to be objective in
their investiagation, or certainly trying to present this appearance.
But  this could just be a facade. I
> have not found such a 'tude to be present all that
> often. My experience is that they more often react
> like JohnR does every time someone suggests that he
> prove Jyotish by making one or two *concrete, non-
> vague, easily verifiable predictions*. He declines,
> every time, for one reason or another.
>
> He -- and people like him -- will *always* decline
> any real opportunity to "prove" the things they believe
> to be true. They cannot take the chance that these
> things they believe in might be proved untrue.
>
> Just my opinion.

Thanks.  I also don't see a direct path for them to profit from it. I
mean they are not making a newdiscovery.  And I'm not sure how the
supposed yogi can easily cash in on it either.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'

[ditzyklanmail]

I liked that very much. Thanks for posting. lol.






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 1 May, 2010 12:05:31 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "It's just a ride"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Rick Archer  wrote:
> 
> > Dateline: Maharishi University of Management

> > What did he mean by this? "Survive" could have many meanings.
> >
> > http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=gYaU78j4u7k
> >
> *http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=WLKk00OYKhU*

One of my all-time favorite videos (partly because
it's hilarious and partly because the dude has such
a sweet bod).

The video at the second URL above is the one to
watch--it's  slightly different from the first one,
and better.

Can't figure out how they did the thing at the end.
It looks so realistic.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy May Day!

[WillyTex]

Bhairitu:
> People of the world unite against the rich...
> 
This is the best you can do on Saturday night?

You sound really jealous and paranoid of 'rich' 
people. Why not get a job and make some money 
yourself?

So, who is going to bail out the Greek economy
- rich people or poor people?

> ...word is that the US military has been 
> training to quell similar riots in the US.
>
You sound really scared - got any defensive 
plans? Would you go on strike if your Social
Security benefits were reduced and your income
tax was increased? Would you join a Tea Party 
protest or what? 

"Other governments have also over-indulged 
themselves. If the current economic recovery 
falters, sovereign debt crises are likely to 
break out beyond the borders of Europe..."

Read more:

'Greece a bad omen for others in debt'
By Edward Chancellor
Financial Times, May 2, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/24grlsu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "paultrunk"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > < rantus snippitus >
> > 
> > Don't say I never gave you anything...
> 
> You could substitute the word science teacher, history teacher, 
> priest, politician, tarot card reader and on and on for spiritual 
> slacker.  

Absolutely. If the "knowledge" they are trying to pass
along to you comes from books or hearsay rather than 
their own personal experience, and you value personal
experience.

> The question becomes, "How do you prove one's experience"?

A larger question might be, "Why would you want to?"

I am *not* trying to say that science teachers and 
history teachers cannot convey information that is of
value, even if they only read it from books or got it
from hearsay. 

What I am talking about is the realm of "spiritual
experience." FOR ME, at this point in my life, I am
no longer interested in theory. I am no longer inter-
ested in hearing things that came out of books. I am
no longer interested in hearing things supposedly 
said in "scripture" or by the supposedly-enlightened
who are not present in the room to ask questions of.

I am interested in *people's own experiences*, and 
in hearing them, comparing them to mine, and possibly
learning something in the process. 

If they do not *have* personal experiences to relate
in this realm of spiritual experience, and are limited
to repeating Other People's Experiences, or things
that they've become aware of only in books or talks
or hearsay, what they have to say has no interest. So 
shoot me.  :-)

For learning other, more mundane kinds of things, I
don't really give a shit how they came by the things
they pass along to me, *as long as they work*. In the
realm of spiritual experience -- especially when it
comes to discussions of higher states of consciousness
and out-of-the-ordinary experiences like siddhis or 
the psychic phenomena, I have no stomach for people 
who have no personal experience with these things but
who want to parrot what they've heard or read to me
as if I should listen to them and pay heed to what
they say. I'd rather listen to real parrots.  :-)

But back to your excellent question. Why should anyone
who *does* have personal experience in these areas (as
opposed to the spiritual slackers who do not) ever want
to "prove" their personal experience?

First, that's a Fool's Errand. Can't be done. Subjective
is subjective, and subjective it will remain, forever.

Second, why would they ever even want to TRY? What is
to be *gained* from trying to convince someone of the
"truth" or "validity" of one's own personal, subjective
experiences? IMO, the best that one can *do* with such
experiences is just to throw them out there and see
whether anyone finds a resonance with them.

"Proving" things is for people who are trying to *sell*
things. I -- and the people I admire -- merely share
things, things that we have personally experienced. Do
with them what you will. Believe them, don't believe
them...doesn't matter a damn.

Again, just my opinion...

[FairfieldLife] Re: MUM only to 'Survive'

[guyfawkes91]

 
> Anyone have news from Kansas? The part finished empty shell of "Maharishi 
> Central University" will be going up for sale as farmland sometime in the 
> next couple of years. 
> 
News from Kansas

http://tinyurl.com/34ewjk4

Looks like it's already gone back to being farmland, albeit organic farmland 
owned by the TMO. I wonder if the farmer has ever been paid for helping out, or 
if he has to pay an above market rent to farm there. 

Sounds like they're still clinging to the idea that it's all going to be OK 
when the economy turns and then they can take it out of hibernation and 
students will flock there. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector

[paultrunk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> OK, as a free gift to everyone here, I pass along some
> invaluable spiritual advice. It's not original with me,
> and is passed along the way I received it, as "open 
> source." You may use it without fee or license, and may
> pass it along to others if you find it useful. You may
> even take the original "advice source code" and modify
> it as you wish, and pass along the result, *as long as
> you keep it open source*, and do not attempt to profit
> from it.
> 
> It's a very simple test by which you can *instantly*
> detect whether the person you are speaking with -- in
> person or on the Internet -- is a spiritual slacker. 
> And it's foolproof. 
> 
> Before we start, it will help to establish a baseline,
> and define what I mean by "spiritual slacker" (SS).
> For the purposes of this free advice post, when I 
> refer to someone as a SS, I mean: "Someone who speaks
> authoritatively or with conviction or as if they were
> speaking the 'truth' about something *when they have
> never experienced the thing they're talking about 
> personally*." So, now that the term is defined, how 
> do you go about *detecting* someone like this?
> 
> Utterly simple. When they have finished making their
> pronouncements about the latest thing they're making
> pronouncements about, ask one simple question:
> 
> "TELL ME/US ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
> WITH THIS SUBJECT." Then shut up and wait. 
> 
> If the person you are addressing *can* reply to this
> question with an actual experience that they have had
> or that they have witnessed, you are dealing with 
> someone who has at the very least "been there, done 
> that." The fact that they *have*, in fact, personally 
> experienced the thing they're talking about does not 
> IMO make their opinion any better than anyone else's, 
> but at least you know that you're not dealing with 
> a spiritual slacker. 
> 
> ANY OTHER ANSWER TELLS YOU YOU'RE DEALING
> WITH A SPIRITUAL SLACKER.
> 
> For example:
> 
> * If the SS in question has claimed to know "What MMY
> teaches" or claimed to know something about the inner 
> workings of the TM movement, any other answer than
> personal, long-term experience working with MMY and
> *in* the TMO identifies that person as a SS.
> 
> * If the SS in question has been making pronouncements
> about the "real nature" of "higher" states of conscious-
> ness (such as CC, GC, or UC, in MMY's terminology) and
> has never experienced them personally, you are dealing 
> with a SS.
> 
> * If the person replies by "invoking authority" and 
> quoting "scripture" or Someone Else's Opinion at you
> as if the person being quoted *is* an "authority,"
> you are dealing with a SS.
> 
> * If the person quotes a book he/she has read, or a 
> tape they have watched or listened to, but has never
> experienced the subject being discussed themselves,
> you're dealing with a SS.
> 
> * When someone makes pronouncements about siddhis or
> "miracles" as if they know the "truth" about them, but
> has never witnessed any or performed them themselves,
> you are *by definition* dealing with a SS.
> 
> * If the person reacts strongly by trying to denigrate
> the person asking the question, while *avoiding* the
> question, you're dealing with a SS.
> 
> * If the person trots out reports from other people as
> if they supported the claim, but cannot report *from
> their own experience*, you're dealing with a SS.
> 
> * And so on...
> 
> It's a simple test, and IMO foolproof. It doesn't help
> to determine the "truth" of the subject being discussed,
> but it *does* help you identify who you're dealing with.
> 
> There are a lot of people -- especially on the Internet --
> who seem to feel that they have the right to "weigh in"
> on discussions about subjects they have no personal,
> subjective experience with. In fact, many of them view
> this as some kind of absolute or divine right, as if 
> their position as an "armchair mystic" who has only read
> about or heard about the subject *qualified* them to
> weigh in on it. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. You've either paid your
> dues or you haven't. You've either been there, done that
> or you have not. 
> 
> If you *haven't* paid your dues, if you *haven't* ever
> been there, done that, that does not necessarily IMO make
> your argument or your POV "false," but it does indicate
> something interesting about your ethical standards and
> your sense of reality. 
> 
> In discussions of spiritual experience, I like talking
> to people who have actually *had* those experiences. I 
> am less interested in those who have only heard about
> those experiences. *Especially* when the latter make
> near-absolute pronouncements about the "truth" of their
> POV or their "right" to express it *as* a pronouncement.
> 
> This is the reason I have tried to say nothing negative
> about the interviews in Rick's "Buddha at the Gas Pump"
> series. I may find many of the inter

[FairfieldLife] Boobquake Followup, part 2

[TurquoiseB]

For those who sense of decency and moral outrage 
was...uh...more outraged by the recent failure of
God to smite the planet with earthquakes as 80,000+
women dressed immodestly a few days ago to test 
Him, have no fear. God has -- or is that hath? -- 
smitten.

True, he has shitty aim, and hath smitten the
wrong planet, but it's good to know He's not as
asleep at the wheel as many thought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/blizzard-on-saturn-is-so_n_559805.html

[FairfieldLife] Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector

[TurquoiseB]

OK, as a free gift to everyone here, I pass along some
invaluable spiritual advice. It's not original with me,
and is passed along the way I received it, as "open 
source." You may use it without fee or license, and may
pass it along to others if you find it useful. You may
even take the original "advice source code" and modify
it as you wish, and pass along the result, *as long as
you keep it open source*, and do not attempt to profit
from it.

It's a very simple test by which you can *instantly*
detect whether the person you are speaking with -- in
person or on the Internet -- is a spiritual slacker. 
And it's foolproof. 

Before we start, it will help to establish a baseline,
and define what I mean by "spiritual slacker" (SS).
For the purposes of this free advice post, when I 
refer to someone as a SS, I mean: "Someone who speaks
authoritatively or with conviction or as if they were
speaking the 'truth' about something *when they have
never experienced the thing they're talking about 
personally*." So, now that the term is defined, how 
do you go about *detecting* someone like this?

Utterly simple. When they have finished making their
pronouncements about the latest thing they're making
pronouncements about, ask one simple question:

"TELL ME/US ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
WITH THIS SUBJECT." Then shut up and wait. 

If the person you are addressing *can* reply to this
question with an actual experience that they have had
or that they have witnessed, you are dealing with 
someone who has at the very least "been there, done 
that." The fact that they *have*, in fact, personally 
experienced the thing they're talking about does not 
IMO make their opinion any better than anyone else's, 
but at least you know that you're not dealing with 
a spiritual slacker. 

ANY OTHER ANSWER TELLS YOU YOU'RE DEALING
WITH A SPIRITUAL SLACKER.

For example:

* If the SS in question has claimed to know "What MMY
teaches" or claimed to know something about the inner 
workings of the TM movement, any other answer than
personal, long-term experience working with MMY and
*in* the TMO identifies that person as a SS.

* If the SS in question has been making pronouncements
about the "real nature" of "higher" states of conscious-
ness (such as CC, GC, or UC, in MMY's terminology) and
has never experienced them personally, you are dealing 
with a SS.

* If the person replies by "invoking authority" and 
quoting "scripture" or Someone Else's Opinion at you
as if the person being quoted *is* an "authority,"
you are dealing with a SS.

* If the person quotes a book he/she has read, or a 
tape they have watched or listened to, but has never
experienced the subject being discussed themselves,
you're dealing with a SS.

* When someone makes pronouncements about siddhis or
"miracles" as if they know the "truth" about them, but
has never witnessed any or performed them themselves,
you are *by definition* dealing with a SS.

* If the person reacts strongly by trying to denigrate
the person asking the question, while *avoiding* the
question, you're dealing with a SS.

* If the person trots out reports from other people as
if they supported the claim, but cannot report *from
their own experience*, you're dealing with a SS.

* And so on...

It's a simple test, and IMO foolproof. It doesn't help
to determine the "truth" of the subject being discussed,
but it *does* help you identify who you're dealing with.

There are a lot of people -- especially on the Internet --
who seem to feel that they have the right to "weigh in"
on discussions about subjects they have no personal,
subjective experience with. In fact, many of them view
this as some kind of absolute or divine right, as if 
their position as an "armchair mystic" who has only read
about or heard about the subject *qualified* them to
weigh in on it. 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. You've either paid your
dues or you haven't. You've either been there, done that
or you have not. 

If you *haven't* paid your dues, if you *haven't* ever
been there, done that, that does not necessarily IMO make
your argument or your POV "false," but it does indicate
something interesting about your ethical standards and
your sense of reality. 

In discussions of spiritual experience, I like talking
to people who have actually *had* those experiences. I 
am less interested in those who have only heard about
those experiences. *Especially* when the latter make
near-absolute pronouncements about the "truth" of their
POV or their "right" to express it *as* a pronouncement.

This is the reason I have tried to say nothing negative
about the interviews in Rick's "Buddha at the Gas Pump"
series. I may find many of the interviews not terribly
interesting for other reasons, but these people are
actually *speaking from experience*. Good on them. And
good on Rick for giving them the opportunity -- and the
forum -- to do so. 

Your mileage on this may vary. And that's cool. But if
you agree with me that the bottom lin

[FairfieldLife] Re: The BBC: Saint who has lived without food, water for 70 yrs

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Lurk,
> >
> > The guy has not been observed long enough to declare a miracle. 
> > And, as we know, bribery is the life blood of India.  
> 
> > Sounds like a pretty harsh, even bigoted judgement.  

Based on the Indians I have known and worked with
in the business community, I don't think it's harsh.
Their first reaction when attempting to get a contract
or resolve a problem with the current one was always
to offer a bribe to the person they thought could make
the outcome happen that they wanted to happen. They 
were often surprised at the real outcome, as if they 
had no reason to ever expect a bribe being rejected.

> So, Indians are likely incapable of a honest inquiry about this? 

I would go further and say that people who are heavily
invested in the *idea* of miracles are the *last* people
on earth who want to "investigate" one. In many cases
they are the last people who ever want to encounter one
in real life. The way that they maintain their faith in
the miracles is to always keep them in the realm of ideas,
and the phenomena themselves safely in the realm of things
that happen to other people.

As I have pointed out many times, the TMO could "prove"
that something extraordinary (beyond expenditure of pure
muscle effort) was happening in "yogic flying." They 
could do this simply and "once and for all" by picking 
their best flyers and filming them with slow-motion-
capture cameras while "flying" on a water mattress. If 
the "flyer" can get off the surface of the water mattress, 
then it's not muscle effort. Done deal. Fait accompli.

Has there ever been any interest in doing this? Of course
not. If it *didn't* happen, they couldn't keep saying that
something extraordinary was happening in "yogic flying"
beyond simple muscle effort. And such a realization would
be the first chink in their armor of belief.

My point is simply that rational people (such as your-
self, Lurk, and I'm serious about this) often ascribe
motives to *irrational* people that they do not have,
such as a desire to find out the "real truth" about
things they are heavily invested in, belief-wise. I
have not found such a 'tude to be present all that
often. My experience is that they more often react
like JohnR does every time someone suggests that he
prove Jyotish by making one or two *concrete, non-
vague, easily verifiable predictions*. He declines,
every time, for one reason or another. 

He -- and people like him -- will *always* decline 
any real opportunity to "prove" the things they believe
to be true. They cannot take the chance that these 
things they believe in might be proved untrue. 

Just my opinion.