[FairfieldLife] Carde, Vidyaranya and Yogasutras

[emptybill]

Carde,

FWIW, I posted Message #253225  for your benefit. It is an article by
Andrew O. Fort entitled:



ON DESTROYING THE MIND: THE YOGASUTRAS IN VIDYARANYA'S  JIVANMUKTIVIVEKA

I don't know if you have already read it, but now it is there in
case you are interested. I did an FFL search and saw that you and Vaj
have been arguing the same point for years. You should re-title that
thread calling it To the Bitter End or maybe just WTF – Who Care
What You Say because that seems like the sum total of your years of
"discussion"with him.
OTOH maybe a better title is - I'm Having Fun so WTF.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Monier-Williams etymologically defines maya (maayaa) as deriving
from
>
> That's an important distinction between 'maya' and 'maayaa'.
> For instance, 'anna-maya' means 'made from food'.
>
> In BS, there is a suutra that goes like
>
> aanandamayo 'bhyaasaat (aananda-mayaH; abhyaasaat)
>
> We think it might mean something like
>
> (brahma[n]) "consists" of bliss, from repetition
> (because that is repeated in the Vedic literature??).
>

[FairfieldLife] Chelsea's Wedding

[John]

She should have consulted a jyotishi to pick a better date for her wedding.  
The conjunction of Mars and Saturn is still in effect which is not a good 
muhurta or time for starting important activities.

In addition, most Americans get married on Saturday, a day owned by a malefic 
Saturn.  This is another reason why the divorce rate in the USA is very high.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/airspace-to-be-closed-near-clinton-wedding/?hp

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> 
> > Seriously, what's sad are, like I 
> > mentioned previously, the mental gyrations
> > Judy is going through in order to be able
> > to keep the faith.
> 
> Um, no, Judy doesn't have to go through any
> "mental gyrations," sorry. If you're seeing
> "gyrations," they're a function of your
> problems following simple logic and quite
> straightforward arguments. They exist only
> in your confused mind.

Yeah, right...that's why Sal has lots of
posts left and Judy just "posted out" on
Wednesday, AGAIN, after endless posts 
trying to "explain" what she were unable
to make clear the first time.  :-)  

Bottom line is that I said she'd be unable
to admit -- even as a possibility -- that 
TM is just another technique of meditation,
far from unique and far from important, and
Sal agreed with me saying that. Judy has now
posted out doing exactly what we predicted
she'd do. And she thinks that *we're* the
ones who are confused?  :-)  :-)  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maya in Shankara: Measuring the Immeasurable

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Monier-Williams etymologically defines maya (maayaa) as deriving from

That's an important distinction between 'maya' and 'maayaa'.
For instance, 'anna-maya' means 'made from food'.

In BS, there is a suutra that goes like

aanandamayo 'bhyaasaat (aananda-mayaH; abhyaasaat)

We think it might mean something like

(brahma[n]) "consists" of bliss, from repetition
(because that is repeated in the Vedic literature??).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[pranamoocher]

Hey, its Lou Grant from the Mary Tyler Moore Show!
Amazing to realize Lou was leading a spiritually engaged "other" life
back in the day, though.
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
http://www.nkbashram.org/photo-gallery.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Girl

[John]

Marvellous!  She's a genius.  She could be the next Charlotte Church.  Those 
mantra songs should be easy for her.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/videogaga/52593/amazing-voice-7-year-old-gospel-singer-belts-whitney-and-celine-songs/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of tartbrain
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:41 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > (Hindu-style) enlightenment and liberation, as well as lesh avidya, are
> > premised on one's karma: sanchita (the huge mt. range that we could never
> > take on in one life) and prarabdha (the small satchel that we do take on
> > this life.) 
> > 
> > Liberation occurs when the seeds of sanchita karma are "roasted", that is,
> > burned in knowledge such that they can no longer germinate - they can no
> > longer propel us into a new incarnation. One is free from the cycle of human
> > birth and death. (And if one is not aware of this occurring, they are most
> > probably not enlightened -- despite their flowery words proclaiming that).
> > 
> > However, liberation cannot burn up prarabdha karma -- everyone must live
> > that out in this life. So, lets say one took on some really decadent karma
> > in this life -- but they also were able to gain liberation. The lesh avidya
> > is all that intensely decadent prarabdha karma. Its a very heavy lesh avidya
> > The liberated one, experience Unity, with the ability to raise those around
> > him (e.g., "Blazing Brahman" and yet be the most intense womenizer, drinker,
> > drug user, gambler, con man, liar, cheat, smoker, meat eater that one has
> > ever seen.
> > 
> > Another jivan-mukti may have the loveliest of prarabdha karma and be full of
> > love, hugs, and gentleness.
> > 
> > What is the mystery?
> > 
> > This is interesting. I've been thinking about it since you posted it. If
> > things really work this way, it would explain a lot. 
> 
> Yes. 
> 
> > Do you think that one's
> > prarabdha karma is somewhat representative of the overall quality of one's
> > sanchita karma, or no correlation whatsoever? 
> 
> See response to EBill's post. We take on the types and particles of sanchita 
> karma that is relevant to a time, place, genes of our incarnation 
> opportunities. That incarnation opportunity may be the magnet for lots of 
> good and bad karma -- satvic and tamasic. 

> And the mix of the prarabdha karma in this life may have little correlation 
> with the mt range3 of sanchita karma.  Each incarnation opportunity can be 
> way different in the type of our sanchita karma that coagulates around it. 

And the type of sanchita that coagulates and forms around an incarnation 
opportunity, and the timing of its unfoldment, -- is I believe -- the map of 
karma that jyotish provides.

and forget all of the stories and baggage you may be carrying around about 
jyotish -- I am referring to real jyotish -- which most have not been 
introduced to) 

It is a clock /map of the type and timing of our prahrabdha karma in this life 
-- the karma extracted from the huge pile of sanchita karma -- that prarabdah 
karma that fits the circumstances of our incarnation opportunity. 

Jyotish has nothing to do with planets creating karma or  other such nonesense. 
It is the map of our own karma that we have chosen, or have an opportunity, to 
take on in this life. The karma is already there, jyotish is a clock that tells 
the time of its unfoldment -- and gives insight as to its type.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maya in Shankara: Measuring the Immeasurable

[yifuxero]

thx, very interesting definition!.  But on the whole, various Sages follow up 
with a non-Sequitur; i.e. by saying that one should not indulge in sensory 
pleasures (even) after the Self is realized, since Self-Realization should 
quench any of such desires.  Sorry, but that doesn't follow.
 Maya as a measure of Brahman may be "an" attribute of illusory phenomena; but 
that function is only seen by Sages after realizing It.

But more important, evidence points to Self-Realized people as chasing after 
sensory pleasures. 
 
So either MMY was Enlightened and still chasing after pleasures "in 
themselves"; i.e. not connected at all to being a "measure of Brahman",...OR:
 He was unEnlightened and nevertheless engaging in sensory pleasures; but in 
either case the mayic attractions (the lure of the famous Sirens in the 
Odysseus epic, so to speak); may have been independent of any purpose relating 
to Brahman (and thus not much measuring going on)..

Thus, maya imo "may" be a measure of Brahman, ...; or perhaps like countless 
other folk, maya is something to be indulged in merely because of the fun, 
cheap thrills, and sensory pleasures involved.

Here's a typical example from Ramana Maharshi, page 17 of "Guru Vachaka Kouvai" 
edited talks of Ramana by his disciple Muruganar.
Ramana states:

"You who believe that the world, which is experienced merely as an object of 
the senses, is real, and who cherish it as something worthwhile, come 
ultimately to grief, like the parrot that waits for the silk-cotton fruit to 
ripen! If this world is real merely because it is peceived, then water seen in 
a mirage is also real because it too is perceived".

Then Muruganar goes on to explain that the silk-cotton tree is a large pod that 
ripens reaving it's insides, an inedible, white fluffy mass of fibre.  
"Expecting the world to produce real benefits is compared to the fruitless 
vigil of the parrot that ignorantly expects something delicious to come out of 
the silk-cotton tree's pod."

OK, in these statements Ramana and Muruganar have mixed up two (at least) 
distinct concepts.  First is the idea of seeing the real nature of existence 
(involving the traditional rope/snake analogy mentioned on other pages.).

But then R. and M. bring in other concepts like measures of enjoyment, not of 
perception;...when Ramana says "...and who cherish it as something worthwhile".

Sorry...non-Sequitur. Seeing the real nature of existence says nothing about 
cherishing relative experiences, and to the degree.
If this were true - some definite connection existed between Self-Realization 
and relinquishing certain sensory behaviors, then we could make a list of the 
"prohibited" behaviors that persons must give up.

But assuming MMY was Self-Realized, then it appears he was unconvinced of the 
"worthlessness" of chasing after sensory pleasures; pointing to my overall 
conclusion:

Maya may be a measure of Brahman (ultimately); but people still chase after 
sensory pleasures, in addition to participating in other traditional pursuits 
such as the acquisitionof $.

Such ongoing pursuits even after Self-Realization point to an unreasonable 
(imo) mixing of two different concepts: the nature of of Maya from an 
ontological perspective, and the "worth" of engaging in sensory pleasures.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Monier-Williams etymologically defines maya (maayaa) as deriving from
> the root maa or "measuring". When one add the suffix ya to the
> root maa it can be defined as "relating to measuring". This was
> also the meaning understood in the earliest etymological references to
> maya (maayaa) aside from the Rgveda, as contained in the Nighan.tu and
> the Nirukta as we saw in Chapter Two.
> 
> 
> 
> We have seen above that maya can also be understood in this manner in
> Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. This is so because maya acts as the
> measuring out of phenomena so that Brahman remains. This "measuring
> of phenomena" is the inquiry into Brahman itself. Even when maya is
> translated by the word "illusion", this inquiry is fostered
> because maya can only be an "illusion" strictly within an
> ontological discussion of Brahman. Within the structures of epistemology
> and metaphysics maya can never be "illusion" because it
> maintains it reality as a kind of "measure" as long as one is
> still within the name-form (nama-rupa) complex. However, even speaking
> within ontology, maya is not just "illusion" because as we have
> observed, maya-talk is Brahman-talk and conversely Brahman-talk is
> maya-talk and this is so as long as talk exists. Maya can be understood
> by Shankara's Advaita as measure because it is an aspect of maya
> that measures itself out. That is, maya acts in that it uses the errors
> of the phenomenal world to eliminate error in knowledge. And it is in
> this way that the inquiry progresses. As such, maya is forever but not
> eternal. It is the measure of the distinction between Brahm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[emptybill]

>All such fruition karma requires a new lifetime.

>This is why Pantanjali declared that the apparent fusion or  the
>correlation (sambandha) between Seer-Seen must be eliminated in >the
buddhi by direct recognition of their innate separation.

I understood all of this but the last sentence. Please clarify.




The paradoxes of Patanjali are many. This is one of those.

For Patanjali, purusha is ever separate from prakriti, the procreatrix,
who is composed of the three gunas. She likewise is separate from
purusha but is naturally acting and reacting.

The paradox is that although these two eternally separate principles
form a binary pair yet the qualities of the purusha are mistakenly seen
to manifest as the most refine aspect of prakriti known as the
buddhisattva, lit. awakened illumination (sattva described in the sense
of its primary value of prakasha or illumination).

Thus Maharishi's mistake of the intellect (buddhi-aparadha) is the
strange appropriation of sentience for an activity that is merely the
mechanical functioning of non-conscious nature,i.e. the guna-s
interacting among themselves in the realm of human subjectivity.

According to Patanjali, this sambandha (correlation) or samyoga (joining
together) is a mere appearance in the buddhi which then fails to discern
its own nature as other than the purusha.

The meaning of the last sentence of my post revolves around two phrases:
1. apparent fusion and 2. innate separation. I believe you already
understand what I mean by direct recognition of these two values.

Hopefully I have provided a sufficient descriptive context for others to
understand what my point was.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of emptybill
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:12 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya
>
>
>
>
>
> Sanchita karma is the karma-ashaya (deposit of action-reactions) that
can
> only manifest within the matrix of appropriate conditions. If I have
the
> sanchita karma to be a king or queen then this sanskara will never
manifest
> in 20th-21st century America . that is unless the political system is
> overthrown and Obama declared the new Emperor. Doesn't work for
Lesbian bars
> or Mardis Gra float either since such karma-s are the action-seeds for
an
> entertainer. Nor will it manifest as the lifetime of a lion roaming
the
> African velt .should  that even be possible. That is the karma for
being an
> animal.
>
> This is not a matter of title but of function. Ruling by decree is not
going
> happen here unless America (as we know it) disappears. And no matter
what
> Bhairitu or Dodo might stridently claim.
>
> All such fruition karma requires a new lifetime. This is why
Pantanjali
> declared that the apparent fusion or the correlation (sambandha)
between
> Seer-Seen must be eliminated in the buddhi by direct recognition of
their
> innate separation.
>
> I understood all of this but the last sentence. Please clarify.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of tartbrain
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:41 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> (Hindu-style) enlightenment and liberation, as well as lesh avidya, are
> premised on one's karma: sanchita (the huge mt. range that we could never
> take on in one life) and prarabdha (the small satchel that we do take on
> this life.) 
> 
> Liberation occurs when the seeds of sanchita karma are "roasted", that is,
> burned in knowledge such that they can no longer germinate - they can no
> longer propel us into a new incarnation. One is free from the cycle of human
> birth and death. (And if one is not aware of this occurring, they are most
> probably not enlightened -- despite their flowery words proclaiming that).
> 
> However, liberation cannot burn up prarabdha karma -- everyone must live
> that out in this life. So, lets say one took on some really decadent karma
> in this life -- but they also were able to gain liberation. The lesh avidya
> is all that intensely decadent prarabdha karma. Its a very heavy lesh avidya
> The liberated one, experience Unity, with the ability to raise those around
> him (e.g., "Blazing Brahman" and yet be the most intense womenizer, drinker,
> drug user, gambler, con man, liar, cheat, smoker, meat eater that one has
> ever seen.
> 
> Another jivan-mukti may have the loveliest of prarabdha karma and be full of
> love, hugs, and gentleness.
> 
> What is the mystery?
> 
> This is interesting. I've been thinking about it since you posted it. If
> things really work this way, it would explain a lot. 

Yes. 

> Do you think that one's
> prarabdha karma is somewhat representative of the overall quality of one's
> sanchita karma, or no correlation whatsoever? 

See response to EBill's post. We take on the types and particles of sanchita 
karma that is relevant to a time, place, genes of our incarnation 
opportunities. That incarnation opportunity may be the magnet for lots of good 
and bad karma -- satvic and tamasic. 
And the mix of the prarabdha karma in this life may have little correlation 
with the mt range3 of sanchita karma.  Each incarnation opportunity can be way 
different in the type of our sanchita karma that coagulates around it. 

>Seems to me that sattwic
> people are more likely to attain liberation than Tamasic or rajasic,
> although there are exceptions to every generality.

Kind of a false framework in my view. Someone may have a lot of satvic karma in 
this life and ahve a mt range of tamasic sanchita karma. Who is satvic and who 
is tamasic. 

Who is the who, anyway. The sanchita, the prarabdha or neither. All karma is 
tamasic in the sense that it ties us down to the human cycle of birth and 
death.  

Ultimately, we are all beyond satvic and tamasic. Tamasic and satvic labels are 
false.

And i think some delude themselves into thinking a satvic gvoove in this life 
is liberation -- when they have not roasted Sanchita's germination capability. 
If they have not experienced that -- liberation is probably a large fantasy. 


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> Sanchita karma is the karma-ashaya (deposit of action-reactions) that
> can only manifest within the matrix of appropriate conditions. 

Yes, the way I understand it, and intuitively lights up, is there are various 
opportunity to incarnate at a particular time and with particular parents, 
locations, society, culture. All of ones sanchita karma that is relevant to 
those conditions are / can be packaged  to meet the opportunity in that 
environment. Along the lines of what you say below -- ones kingly karma will 
not be part of a package in modern era in US (maybe Norway or Thailand) -- 
unless of course you have a guru who makes people rajas. One's sanchita karma 
about being a pro football player will not manifest if ones genes to be are of 
a puny person. 

And this gives a new slant on castes (not mandatory, slavery shit, but having a 
profession / skill tradition in the family. Doctors, engineers, craftsmen, 
musicians, etc. Easier to package up the sanchita karma related to that.

>If I have
> the sanchita karma to be a king or queen then this sanskara will never
> manifest in 20th-21st century America … that is unless the political
> system is overthrown and Obama declared the new Emperor. Doesn't
> work for Lesbian bars or Mardis Gra float either since such karma-s are
> the action-seeds for an entertainer. Nor will it manifest as the
> lifetime of a lion roaming the African velt …should  that even be
> possible. That is the karma for being an animal.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a matter of title but of function. Ruling by decree is not
> going happen here unless America (as we know it) disappears. And no
> matter what Bhairitu or Dodo might stridently claim.
> 
> 
> 
> All such fruition karma requires a new lifetime. This is why Pantanjali
> declared that the apparent fusion or the correlation (sambandha) between
> Seer-Seen must be eliminated in the buddhi by direct recognition of
> their innate separation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > This is interesting. I've been thinking about it since you posted it.
> If
> > things really work this way, it would explain a lot. Do you think that
> one's prarabdha karma is somewhat representative of the overall quality
> of one's sanchita karma, or no correlation whatsoever? Seems to me that
> sattwic people are more likely to attain liberation than Tamasic or
> rajasic, although there are exceptions to every generality.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Maya in Shankara: Measuring the Immeasurable

[emptybill]

Monier-Williams etymologically defines maya (maayaa) as deriving from
the root maa or "measuring". When one add the suffix ya to the
root maa it can be defined as "relating to measuring". This was
also the meaning understood in the earliest etymological references to
maya (maayaa) aside from the Rgveda, as contained in the Nighan.tu and
the Nirukta as we saw in Chapter Two.



We have seen above that maya can also be understood in this manner in
Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. This is so because maya acts as the
measuring out of phenomena so that Brahman remains. This "measuring
of phenomena" is the inquiry into Brahman itself. Even when maya is
translated by the word "illusion", this inquiry is fostered
because maya can only be an "illusion" strictly within an
ontological discussion of Brahman. Within the structures of epistemology
and metaphysics maya can never be "illusion" because it
maintains it reality as a kind of "measure" as long as one is
still within the name-form (nama-rupa) complex. However, even speaking
within ontology, maya is not just "illusion" because as we have
observed, maya-talk is Brahman-talk and conversely Brahman-talk is
maya-talk and this is so as long as talk exists. Maya can be understood
by Shankara's Advaita as measure because it is an aspect of maya
that measures itself out. That is, maya acts in that it uses the errors
of the phenomenal world to eliminate error in knowledge. And it is in
this way that the inquiry progresses. As such, maya is forever but not
eternal. It is the measure of the distinction between Brahman with and
without distinction.



The structure of maya cannot be determined as anything separate from the
inquiry into Brahman. The inquiry proceeds by understanding that any and
all discussion, if it be accurately termed such, centers upon discourse
about Brahman. Maya as discourse about Brahman relates to maya as
"measuring out" in that it is through discourse about Brahman
that maya measures out the name-form complex, language, and maya itself
so that the reason for the discourse, namely knowledge of Brahman
(gnosis), can be actualized. The procedure of the activity of measuring
is the discourse itself. In this procedure the result of the discourse
is proposed at the start of the endeavor thus "Now therefore an
inquiry into Brahman" (Brahma Sutra 1.1). The discourse about
Brahman points beyond the discourse when knowledge of Brahman is
discussed. It is this discussion which points beyond maya as
"measure" and "discourse about Brahman" and this
pointing shows another aspect of maya. This aspect is seen when measure
and discourse are understood as primary pointers and are analogues that
always participate in aiming one at Brahman. Analogues ... allow maya to
fulfill its necessary function ... that is to make itself transparent to
Brahman.



L Thomas O'Neil

Asst. Professor in History of Religion
Univ. of  Missouri, Columbia, Mo.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> Not really! Where does it say maya is the measure of Brahman? That is
a very strange and completely erroneous interpretation.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> He's got that deep voice that reverberates with the song.  Listen to this one 
> before you go to sleep.  Let us know how you feel the next day.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiWt0Di6ZwQ&feature=related
> 

Someone gave me a Krishna Das audio tape a few years ago. I listened to it once 
then ended up giving it away two years ago to a friend who was thrilled to have 
it. I really dislike this guy's voice. I can't understand why people think he's 
such a great singer, but if you do, more power to you. I linked to the music 
you suggested wondering if he had gotten any better. Nope. Thanks, anyway.

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> > 
> > I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Peter]

Very nice links, Nabs. Thank you.

--- On Wed, 7/28/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:

> From: nablusoss1008 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 6:41 PM
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> Peter  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Nabs, do you even know anything about Krishna
> Das? He's a really great guy and performs wonderful bhajans.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah right. For me his "bhajans" are crude jokes. He
> has a nice voice but does not know how to use it, nor even
> remotely how to sing.
> > 
> > Different strokes for different people I suppose.
> 
> 
> For Peter and lovers of Bhajans: 
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/245ej24
> http://tinyurl.com/23gkfga
> http://tinyurl.com/2csshm5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[yifuxero]

http://www.nkbashram.org/photo-gallery.htm

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 7/28/10, emptybill  wrote:
> 
> > From: emptybill 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:22 PM
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > nablusoss1008 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >   > Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this
> > pretentious guy.
> > >
> > 
> > Already happened. Neem Karoli Baba was his name.
> 
> 
> Ha ha, excellent!
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Peter]

--- On Wed, 7/28/10, emptybill  wrote:

> From: emptybill 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 9:22 PM
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> 
>   > Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this
> pretentious guy.
> >
> 
> Already happened. Neem Karoli Baba was his name.


Ha ha, excellent!

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[emptybill]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
wrote:

  > Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious guy.
>

Already happened. Neem Karoli Baba was his name.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Mike Dixon]

I just love that nasally sound!





From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 3:41:05 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> > 
> > Nabs, do you even know anything about Krishna Das? He's a really great guy 
>and performs wonderful bhajans. 
>
> 
> 
> Yeah right. For me his "bhajans" are crude jokes. He has a nice voice but 
> does 
>not know how to use it, nor even remotely how to sing.
> 
> Different strokes for different people I suppose.

For Peter and lovers of Bhajans: 

http://tinyurl.com/245ej24
http://tinyurl.com/23gkfga
http://tinyurl.com/2csshm5





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[Joe]

Oh really Nabby? Now who would that be? I was around at that time and I recall 
no such thing.

Other than the ultimate loony-tunes troll Willie (who no one here has the 
slightest respect for), who have you got Nabby?

No one.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> > 
> > My suspicion is that she can admit that Maharishi
> > was merely human. 
> 
> Turq, you're a fool; yet you claim to have been an insider in the TMO. I's 
> easy to see that this is a blatant lie and that you were kicked out from SIMS 
> due to your aggressive attitude. Several people here can testify that you 
> were kept far outside the door of Maharishi for His safety.
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 24 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 31 00:00:00 2010
431 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jul 28 23:34:48 2010

50 authfriend 
42 nablusoss1008 
32 WillyTex 
29 Rick Archer 
28 tartbrain 
19 emptybill 
18 Sal Sunshine 
18 John 
16 Mike Dixon 
14 Bhairitu 
13 cardemaister 
13 Joe 
12 Hugo 
11 TurquoiseB 
10 curtisdeltablues 
10 brian64705 
10 Buck 
10 Alex Stanley 
 9 ditzyklanmail 
 9 Robert 
 8 Peter 
 6 raunchydog 
 5 yifuxero 
 5 Vaj 
 4 seventhray1 
 4 jpgillam 
 4 feste37 
 4 Peter L Sutphen 
 3 freeitm 
 3 azgrey 
 3 "do.rflex" 
 2 Yifu Xero 
 1 shukra69 
 1 merudanda 
 1 drpetersutphen 
 1 William 
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 Curtis Blues 
 1 "martin.quickman" 

Posters: 39
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

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


> 
> My suspicion is that she can admit that Maharishi
> was merely human. 

Turq, you're a fool; yet you claim to have been an insider in the TMO. I's easy 
to see that this is a blatant lie and that you were kicked out from SIMS due to 
your aggressive attitude. Several people here can testify that you were kept 
far outside the door of Maharishi for His safety.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[Joe]

Willie-boy, do you notice anything?

Do you notice that not one person is speaking up on your behalf here? Not one.

Now why do you suppose that is? Sit down, put your boots up and give it a good 
long ponder Willie-boy.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Bhairitu:
> > It's not everyday that a troll gets a song 
> > written about him...  
> > 
> This just in - a new low for Barry2:
> 
> So, you're comparing your 'songwriting' to 
> Texas hillbilly music? That's a stretch 
> to say the least!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Texas
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_blues
> 
> > > (To the tune of Texas Waltz)
> > > Have you seen Willy,
> > > the FFL hillbilly,
> > > the silly right wing nut job?
> > > He's such a dilly,
> > > that FFL hillbilly,
> > > lunching on salsa with
> > > his roast prairie dog.
> > >
> > > Have you seen Willy,
> > > the FFL hillbilly,
> > > waltzing around very proud.
> > > He's such a dilly,
> > > that FFL hillbilly,
> > > too bad he has not
> > > a real thought in his head.
> > >
> > > (others can add verses here)
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> > 
> > Nabs, do you even know anything about Krishna Das? He's a really great guy 
> > and performs wonderful bhajans. 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. For me his "bhajans" are crude jokes. He has a nice voice but 
> does not know how to use it, nor even remotely how to sing.
> 
> Different strokes for different people I suppose.


For Peter and lovers of Bhajans: 

http://tinyurl.com/245ej24
http://tinyurl.com/23gkfga
http://tinyurl.com/2csshm5

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  wrote:
> 
> Nabs, do you even know anything about Krishna Das? He's a really great guy 
> and performs wonderful bhajans. 


Yeah right. For me his "bhajans" are crude jokes. He has a nice voice but does 
not know how to use it, nor remotely how to sing.

Different strokes for different people I suppose.

http://tinyurl.com/245ej24

[FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[WillyTex]

Bhairitu:
> It's not everyday that a troll gets a song 
> written about him...  
> 
This just in - a new low for Barry2:

So, you're comparing your 'songwriting' to 
Texas hillbilly music? That's a stretch 
to say the least!

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

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

> > (To the tune of Texas Waltz)
> > Have you seen Willy,
> > the FFL hillbilly,
> > the silly right wing nut job?
> > He's such a dilly,
> > that FFL hillbilly,
> > lunching on salsa with
> > his roast prairie dog.
> >
> > Have you seen Willy,
> > the FFL hillbilly,
> > waltzing around very proud.
> > He's such a dilly,
> > that FFL hillbilly,
> > too bad he has not
> > a real thought in his head.
> >
> > (others can add verses here)
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Peter]

--- On Wed, 7/28/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:

> From: nablusoss1008 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 5:03 PM
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:06 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "Alex
> Stanley"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  ,
> "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das
> concerts?
> > > 
> > > I went to the first two concerts he gave in
> Fairfield. Good stuff.
> > 
> > Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this
> pretentious guy.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Actually, I found him quite humble and unpretentious.
> Very down to earth.
> 
> > Why do you say he's pretentious?
> 
> Selfconscious, very interested in making money and absorbed
> in his looks. Thinks he and chanting will be the next new
> wave after AuyrVeda. Refuse to remove his dark sunglasses.
> Full of himself.

Oh Nabs you silly goose! He's been doing this for decades. You need a firm 
spanking young man!



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Peter]

--- On Wed, 7/28/10, nablusoss1008  wrote:

> From: nablusoss1008 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 4:06 PM
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "Alex Stanley"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> > 
> > I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield.
> Good stuff.
> 
> 
> Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious
> guy.

Nabs, do you even know anything about Krishna Das? He's a really great guy and 
performs wonderful bhajans. 




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:06 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> 
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> > 
> > I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.
> 
> Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious guy.
> 
>  
> 
> Actually, I found him quite humble and unpretentious. Very down to earth.

> Why do you say he's pretentious?

Selfconscious, very interested in making money and absorbed in his looks. 
Thinks he and chanting will be the next new wave after AuyrVeda. Refuse to 
remove his dark sunglasses. Full of himself.

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[authfriend]

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

> Seriously, what's sad are, like I 
> mentioned previously, the mental gyrations
> Judy is going through in order to be able
> to keep the faith.

Um, no, Judy doesn't have to go through any
"mental gyrations," sorry. If you're seeing
"gyrations," they're a function of your
problems following simple logic and quite
straightforward arguments. They exist only
in your confused mind.

  At some point, you'd think
> it would be saner, not to mention easier, to 
> simply say, "I like the technique.  Could I have
> been hoodwinked as to its validity or the
> supposed results?  Hell, yeah.  But I still 
> like it, so so what?"  That would be a valid
> argument.



Stupid Sal, FFL's ultimate arbiter of what
constitutes a valid argument. Like Barry, she
thinks TMers should tell falsehoods about what
they believe. That, to her, is a "valid argument."

  But, no~~Judy's line of thought
> continues to be that TM is the greatest thing
> since sliced bread and MMY the Messiah for
> having brought it here.

Wrong.

  And everybody 
> in the world would agree if they weren't
> steeped in so much ignorance.

Wrong.

  And MMY 
> was so selfless that nearly everything he did
> was for some higher, MUCH higher good,

Wrong.

  that
> the $$ were nice but his *real* goal was to 
> bring to the poor sinners of the world
> "something they found of incalculable value"
> something "for the benefit of all humankind,"
> rather than simply a relaxation technique.

That's the only thing you've said that's
accurate (except for the "poor sinners" part).

> And on and on.
> 
> I was going to wind up all this with some kind
> of clever (ha ha) zinger, but you know what?
> After reading it over, as I mentioned above, I
> find it mostly very sad, actually.

What you read over was a whole long string of
erroneous assertions and chop-logic of your
own devising. If you've found them "mostly very
sad," I suggest that's a reflection of the
extreme inadequacy of your thought processes
(not to mention your reading comprehension and
memory), plus the hostile, angry, ugly filter
through which you choose to see everyting TM-ish.

Talk about attachment!

You'd do better with one of your dumb zingers.

[FairfieldLife] Judge Blocks Controversial Parts Of AZ Immigration Law

[do.rflex]

Judge Blocks Controversial Parts Of AZ Immigration Law

Christina  Bellantoni
  | July 28, 2010
A federal judge today blocked several parts of Arizona's new 
immigration law, putting them on hold as the overall law was scheduled 
to take effect Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the portions of the law 
that most angered its opponents -- including the checking of immigration
status during stops for unrelated offenses -- would not be allowed to 
be enforced.


The Associated Press reported
   that the sections would be put on hold until
the courts resolve the  issues. White House spokesman Bill Burton told
reporters on Air Force  one that the Department of Justice would be
reacting to the ruling.

Judge Bolton was appointed by President Bill Clinton. She was  assigned
the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona measure, which has  ignited
protests, boycotts and even a scolding from officials in  Mexico.

Bolton rules, "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will 
wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By 
enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and 
extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal 
government has the authority to impose."

The law has acted as a flashpoint in the long-standing debate over 
immigration, and sparked new discussions about efforts to pass a 
comprehensive immigration plan in Congress. (The chance of  passing
comprehensive immigration reform in an election year is highly  unlikely
 .)

You can download the ruling as a PDF by clicking here
  or click through it below.

Gov. Jan Brewer this afternoon said she would appeal the ruling and 
called it "a little bump in the road." Brewer (R) suggested that it's 
just a temporary glitch and that both sides knew the other would appeal 
no matter what. Watch her full comments to reporters here
 .

She said the federal government must "step up ... and do the job that 
they have the responsibility to do for the people of America and the 
people of Arizona."

>From the AP:
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required  immigrants to
carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for  undocumented
workers to solicit employment in public places.
...

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations  to
begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters  were
planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure.  At
least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring 
officers to ask them their immigration status.


Late Update:  Homeland Security's deputy press secretary Matt  Chandler
issued a statement on the ruling:
The court's decision to enjoin most of SB1070 correctly  affirms the
federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our  nation's
immigration laws. Over the past eighteen months, this  Administration
has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the  border, and we will
continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt  criminal
organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce  federal
immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart,  effective
ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a  public
safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as  well
as continue to secure our border.
ICE works everyday with local law enforcement across the country to 
assist them in making their communities safer and we will continue do so
in Arizona. At the same time, we will continue to increase resources in 
Arizona by complementing the National Guard deployment set to begin on 
Aug. 1 with the deployment of hundreds of additional Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement agents, Border Patrol agents and other law 
enforcement personnel that will aid in our continuing efforts to conduct
outbound inspections, patrol challenging terrain, and interdict illicit 
smugglers. We are focused on smart effective immigration and border 
enforcement while we work with Congress toward the type of bipartisan 
comprehensive reform that will provide true security and establish 
accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the 
national level.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/judge-rules-against-portions-\
of-arizona-immigration-law.php?ref=fpa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[John]

Here's another song by him.  Listen to it late at night...  Very enchanting to 
say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLLAUPS2C1A&feature=related




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:06 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man
> 
>  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> > 
> > I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.
> 
> Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious guy.
> 
>  
> 
> Actually, I found him quite humble and unpretentious. Very down to earth.
> Why do you say he's pretentious?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[John]

He's got that deep voice that reverberates with the song.  Listen to this one 
before you go to sleep.  Let us know how you feel the next day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiWt0Di6ZwQ&feature=related





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> 
> I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.
>

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:06 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Alex Stanley"
 wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> 
> I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.

Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious guy.

 

Actually, I found him quite humble and unpretentious. Very down to earth.
Why do you say he's pretentious?

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[nablusoss1008]

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


> I was going to wind up all this with some kind
> of clever (ha ha) zinger, but you know what?
> After reading it over, as I mentioned above, I find it mostly very
> sad, actually.
> 
> Sal


Agreed. I think most people here find your postings both unclever and sad.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?
> 
> I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.


Let's see what happens when Shiva hit's this pretentious guy.

[FairfieldLife] Leaked report on Land grabs

[nablusoss1008]

Raj PatelWebsite and Blog of writer, activist and academic, Raj Patel
* Home 
* Raj 
* Books 
* Blog 
* Events 
* Videos 
* Academic 
* Int'l 
« Palo Alto, California
  Leaked
report on Land grabsBy Raj   on
07/28/2010 in Uncategorized

Today's Financial Times
 
has a preview of a much-awaited World Bank report on land grabs. The
Bank has, for months, been promising the arrival of a report that makes
a cast iron case for why allowing rich foreign investors to buy land in
poor countries is win-win-win-win. The release date for the report keeps
slipping because it appears that even the Bank is struggling to massage
the facts to fit its case. From a leaked version of the report:

"Investor interest is focused on countries with weak land
governance," the draft said. Although deals promised jobs and
infrastructure, "investors failed to follow through on their
investments plans, in some cases after inflicting serious damage on the
local resource base".

The report was leaked by

a person who said they wanted to prevent the World Bank releasing the
report in the middle of the summer holiday period.

With the FT piece comes a graph showing the countries with the largest
land transfers. But the FT doesn't say whether the draft report
tracks the recipients of land transfers. For that, you'll need to
look to Franca Roiatti's Il Nuovo Colonialismo, in which it appears
that in Africa the two leading land-grabbing countries are China and the
United Kingdom. More globalisation old and new

, it'd seem.

Full article here
 ,
and watch this space for further developments.

http://rajpatel.org/2010/07/28/leaked-report-on-land-grabs/

RE: [FairfieldLife] Soul Man

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:23 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Soul Man

 

  

Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgjecCWPJW4

&feature=related 

I did, when he came to Fairfield.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Soul Man

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Has anyone attended any of Krishna Das concerts?

I went to the first two concerts he gave in Fairfield. Good stuff.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:47 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:

> In other words, the point I'm interested in is 
> not the "MMY was perfect" shit. I don't think any-
> one here but Nabby can swing behind that, or would
> want to. What I find more interesting is the ling-
> ering investment in the "TM is the highest teaching"
> thang. It's as if there is more attachment to that
> than there is to Maharishi himself.

Good distinction.  And it might be a
tougher one to give up on than even MMY's
"perfection" was.  I mean, it's not like someone
is going to write a book claiming that TM
enabled them to turn invisible,  walk through
walls, or fly, now are they? :)

Seriously, what's sad are, like I 
mentioned previously, the mental gyrations
Judy is going through in order to be able
to keep the faith.  At some point, you'd think
it would be saner, not to mention easier, to 
simply say, "I like the technique.  Could I have
been hoodwinked as to its validity or the
supposed results?  Hell, yeah.  But I still 
like it, so so what?"  That would be a valid
argument.  But, no~~Judy's line of thought
continues to be that TM is the greatest thing
since sliced bread and MMY the Messiah for
having brought it here.  And everybody 
in the world would agree if they weren't
steeped in so much ignorance.  And MMY 
was so selfless that nearly everything he did
was for some higher, MUCH higher good,  that
the $$ were nice but his *real* goal was to 
bring to the poor sinners of the world
"something they found of incalculable value"
something "for the benefit of all humankind,"
rather than simply a relaxation technique.
And on and on.

I was going to wind up all this with some kind
of clever (ha ha) zinger, but you know what?
After reading it over, as I mentioned above, I find it mostly very
sad, actually.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Movie Tip: Timer

[Bhairitu]

"Timer" is a comedy available on DVD and also Netflix WI.  It's sort of 
a sci-fi comedy about people wearing a wrist strip that counts down 
until they meet their perfect mate.  The idea is that within a day the 
perfect mate's wrist strip will count down to zero too.   The lead is a 
former "Buffy" actress.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179794/

Netflix:
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/TiMER/7011701

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[Bhairitu]

Huh?  It's not everyday that a troll gets a song written about him.  You 
should feel honored.  And after all we all have observed you're a 
masochist and get bored if people are actually nice to you.

WillyTex wrote:
> This just in: a new low for FFL.
>
> Now this is getting really personal; now 
> Joe and Barry2 are really getting angry,
> and upset, but come on informants, I know 
> you can do better than this!
>
> Bharitu:
>   
>> (To the tune of Texas Waltz)
>> Have you seen Willy,
>> the FFL hillbilly,
>> the silly right wing nut job?
>> He's such a dilly,
>> that FFL hillbilly,
>> lunching on salsa with
>> his roast prairie dog.
>>
>> Have you seen Willy,
>> the FFL hillbilly,
>> waltzing around very proud.
>> He's such a dilly,
>> that FFL hillbilly,
>> too bad he has not
>> a real thought in his head.
>>
>> (others can add verses here)
>> 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of emptybill
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:12 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

 

  

Sanchita karma is the karma-ashaya (deposit of action-reactions) that can
only manifest within the matrix of appropriate conditions. If I have the
sanchita karma to be a king or queen then this sanskara will never manifest
in 20th-21st century America . that is unless the political system is
overthrown and Obama declared the new Emperor. Doesn't work for Lesbian bars
or Mardis Gra float either since such karma-s are the action-seeds for an
entertainer. Nor will it manifest as the lifetime of a lion roaming the
African velt .should  that even be possible. That is the karma for being an
animal.

This is not a matter of title but of function. Ruling by decree is not going
happen here unless America (as we know it) disappears. And no matter what
Bhairitu or Dodo might stridently claim. 

All such fruition karma requires a new lifetime. This is why Pantanjali
declared that the apparent fusion or the correlation (sambandha) between
Seer-Seen must be eliminated in the buddhi by direct recognition of their
innate separation. 

I understood all of this but the last sentence. Please clarify.

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> What's smug is that the cultist BS that most
> of us got over decades ago still thrives, and 
> Judy seems bound and determined to get you
> to agree that MMY was a something more than
> simply a "person."  Apparently the fact that he
> got rich and famous has blinded her to the fact
> that he was, in fact, merely human.

My suspicion is that she can admit that Maharishi
was merely human. After all, she's trying to pass 
here as rational, and you can't really pass for 
rational at this point while claiming Maharishi 
made no mistakes, given his public history. :-)

What I think she's clinging to give up as an
attachment is the idea that while Maharishi himself
may have been merely human, his "teaching" was not. 
The TM technique and the major dogma that surrounds
it have to be just as unique and just as important 
as she was originally told they were. 

It's very simple, actually. If Maharishi turned
out to be an idiot but TM was still the "highest
teaching" then she at least devoted decades of 
her life to studying the "highest teaching." That 
is acceptable in her mind. 

What is unacceptable is if Maharishi turned out 
to be an idiot AND TM turned out to be rather 
ordinary, anything but unique, and more related 
to spiritual kindergarten than it was to the 
"highest teaching." That she could never admit,
or even admit the possibility of. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[emptybill]

Sanchita karma is the karma-ashaya (deposit of action-reactions) that
can only manifest within the matrix of appropriate conditions. If I have
the sanchita karma to be a king or queen then this sanskara will never
manifest in 20th-21st century America … that is unless the political
system is overthrown and Obama declared the new Emperor. Doesn't
work for Lesbian bars or Mardis Gra float either since such karma-s are
the action-seeds for an entertainer. Nor will it manifest as the
lifetime of a lion roaming the African velt …should  that even be
possible. That is the karma for being an animal.



This is not a matter of title but of function. Ruling by decree is not
going happen here unless America (as we know it) disappears. And no
matter what Bhairitu or Dodo might stridently claim.



All such fruition karma requires a new lifetime. This is why Pantanjali
declared that the apparent fusion or the correlation (sambandha) between
Seer-Seen must be eliminated in the buddhi by direct recognition of
their innate separation.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> This is interesting. I've been thinking about it since you posted it.
If
> things really work this way, it would explain a lot. Do you think that
one's prarabdha karma is somewhat representative of the overall quality
of one's sanchita karma, or no correlation whatsoever? Seems to me that
sattwic people are more likely to attain liberation than Tamasic or
rajasic, although there are exceptions to every generality.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>  
> > What's smug is that the cultist BS that most
> > of us got over decades ago still thrives, and 
> > Judy seems bound and determined to get you
> > to agree that MMY was a something more than
> > simply a "person."  Apparently the fact that he
> > got rich and famous has blinded her to the fact
> > that he was, in fact, merely human.
> 
> Jeez, not a brain in her fluffy little head.
> She can't read, and goodness knows she's
> utterly incapable of having a coherent thought.

Judy, I noticed your post deletion on this thread, so you're good to 51 on the 
post count. Curtis also has a deletion this week, but he's nowhere near 50 
posts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[WillyTex]

This just in: a new low for FFL.

Now this is getting really personal; now 
Joe and Barry2 are really getting angry,
and upset, but come on informants, I know 
you can do better than this!

Bharitu:
> (To the tune of Texas Waltz)
> Have you seen Willy,
> the FFL hillbilly,
> the silly right wing nut job?
> He's such a dilly,
> that FFL hillbilly,
> lunching on salsa with
> his roast prairie dog.
>
> Have you seen Willy,
> the FFL hillbilly,
> waltzing around very proud.
> He's such a dilly,
> that FFL hillbilly,
> too bad he has not
> a real thought in his head.
>
> (others can add verses here)

> > 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and
> > considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks,
> > insults and excessive venting. "Speak the truth that
> > is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some
> > time to gain composure before writing or pushing the
> > send button...
> >
> > FFL Guidelines:
> > http://tinyurl.com/26ph4gc

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > By referring to lesh avidya Jerry tries to minimize
> > > how imperfect the guy was.  Maharishi likened this
> > > remains of ignorance to the greasiness left on the
> > > hand when throwing off a butter ball (never
> > > explaining why one would have it in your hand in the
> > > first place or where it might land),
> > 
> > Metaphorically challenged much?
> 
> No, humor challenged much?

No. I thought it was probably humor, but it was so
pointless I couldn't let it pass.

> This disconnect could be a microcosm for our different 
> perspectives.

Well, we do have different standards of humor, that's
for sure.

> > > the ignorance remaining with the enlightened man still
> > > in a body.  He was referring to some remaining sense
> > > of duality in perceptions.  He wasn't talking about
> > > banging nubile devotees in his 50's, a complete
> > > breakdown of trust in his position. 
> > 
> > Well, he wasn't *telling* you that kind of behavior
> > could be a function of lesh avidya. It sounds like
> > Jerry might have been, though. Jerry may not have 
> > intended to minimize MMY's sins so much as expand
> > our understanding of lesh avidya.
> 
> Let me guess, he has been reading some Hindu books and
> believes them.

Mebbe so. Doesn't change my point.

> I don't consider the Hindu religion as an authority on
> life nor accept Jerry as my teacher.  He is just
> another religious believer to me who serves the role of
> Maharishi apologist.

Non sequitur. Your lack of belief doesn't somehow mean
Jerry was trying to minimize MMY's sins.

> > I can think of several reasons why MMY might not have
> > given you the expanded version. Some of them are more
> > or less scurrilous, but one of them might not be. Can
> > you imagine what it could be?
> 
> I can't even speculate on this.  Whatever information
> about his religion Maharishi doled out was self-serving.

Mind-read much?

You make lots and lots of assertions about his mental
processes and motivations as if they were established
fact, but they're not, they're just your speculations.

In any case, the reason I had in mind would have been
*based* on his beliefs about karma and lesh avidya, but
not telling the full story would have been a 
psychological tactic designed to help you out.

> He had to be selective because the system itself does
> not allow for "outcasts" to become enlightened. (That
> means you and me.) Maharishi made up his own version
> so you are basing all authority on him personally,
> not the system he came from.  I don't buy any of it.

No, look, again, your lack of belief changes nothing
with regard to my point, which applies whether or not
his system was valid.

> But lets be clear about his claims about himself.  He
> was not an authorized teacher in the Hindu system
> like Guru Dev, he was claiming an even greater role in
> enlightening the world with his teaching.  He was being
> more grandiose than anyone in his own religious system
> about his role in history by going outside the caste
> system and teaching foreigners for cash.

Well, first, now *you're* according authority to his
religious system. And he was clear that he rejected
that part of it in any case. You're doing what Vaj
does; it's like dissing Martin Luther because he didn't
teach according to the dictates of the Catholic Church.

Second, check the dictionary for the meanings of "grandiose":

1 : characterized by affectation of grandeur or splendor or
by absurd exaggeration
2 : impressive because of uncommon largeness, scope, effect,
or grandeur

You're using the first definition. He certainly had 
plenty of affectations and did a lot of exaggerating,
but you really can't assert as if it were established
fact that his self-imposed mission to save the world
was no more than an affectation.

> And as predicted in his own system it seems to have
> corrupted him.

Again, you're giving authority to his system (which he
had rejected).

> > > So once again  Jerry in his aw-shucks manor, much
> > > as he did when he told the governors at MIU that we
> > > lost the court case because of the impure lives of
> > > the initiators, offloads the blame to OUR mistaken
> > > impression of the guy.
> > 
> > Wow. I didn't see anything in Rick's account suggesting
> > Jerry was "offloading blame." And blame for what? For
> > MMY's misbehavior?? That makes no sense.
> 
> For us not understanding that he was just a human when he
> spent his life posing as more than that.  It was Jerry's
> style I saw him do it many times.

In that case anybody who teaches anybody else something
they don't know is blaming them for not knowing it.

> > > It is a false comparative. We may or may not have
> > > believed he was perfect as per his own teaching about
> > > attaining perfection in enlighte

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
 
> What's smug is that the cultist BS that most
> of us got over decades ago still thrives, and 
> Judy seems bound and determined to get you
> to agree that MMY was a something more than
> simply a "person."  Apparently the fact that he
> got rich and famous has blinded her to the fact
> that he was, in fact, merely human.

Jeez, not a brain in her fluffy little head.
She can't read, and goodness knows she's
utterly incapable of having a coherent thought.

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[authfriend]

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

> What's smug is that the cultist BS that most
> of us got over decades ago still thrives, and 
> Judy seems bound and determined to get you
> to agree that MMY was a something more than
> simply a "person."  Apparently the fact that he
> got rich and famous has blinded her to the fact
> that he was, in fact, merely human.

Jeez, not a brain in her fluffy little head.
She can't read, and goodness knows she can't
think.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 28, 2010, at 10:54 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

> 
>> Most of us are a mixture of good and bad, but most of
>> us also have pretty piddling little piles of each. Is
>> it really fair for us to point proudly to the smallness
>> of our pile of bad and feel smugly more virtuous than
>> someone with a much bigger pile of bad when their pile
>> of good is a whole lot bigger than ours as well?

> Speak for yourself I am happy with my life and my accomplishments.  I don't 
> believe that his "pile of good" is bigger than mine.  He got richer and more 
> famous.  So did Lindsay Lohan.  He is a fascinating freak to me not an 
> accumulator of piles of good. I don't feel "smugly more virtuous" for not 
> exploiting people as he did,it is just a fact.

> What's smug is that the cultist BS that most
of us got over decades ago still thrives, and 
Judy seems bound and determined to get you
to agree that MMY was a something more than
simply a "person."  Apparently the fact that he
got rich and famous has blinded her to the fact
that he was, in fact, merely human.


> All our lives are equal in that each one of them
>> adds up to 100 percent. If we're going to compare the
>> virtue of one life with that of another, shouldn't
>> we be comparing ratios?



> You've lost me here.

It's Judy-logic, Curtis~~so it's not surprising you're lost. :)

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> You're a regular riot, Willie-boy. Coming from the 
> likes of you, your post is just hilarious!
> 
Not all Texans are black, Joe! 

You sound really angry about something - why not just 
slow down and think things over before you hit the 
SEND button? Why are you so upset? You don't have to
get so personal. It's alright for you to call me a
'Willie-boy', if that helps you to dehumanize me as
something less than human, but it really makes you 
look like you're afraid and really scared.

Maybe it's time for you to take a break from posting 
to FFL, and then, in a year or two, you could return
here and debate like a gentleman, or a scholar - at
present you are neither, Sir.

> > 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful 
> > and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal 
> > attacks, insults and excessive venting. "Speak the 
> > truth that is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If 
> > angry, take some time to gain composure before 
> > writing or pushing the send button...
> > 
> > FFL Guidelines:
> > http://tinyurl.com/26ph4gc

[FairfieldLife] Group Picture La Plagne 1975

[Rick Archer]

A friend of mine wants to know:

 

Does anyone have a copy of the big group picture taken with Maharishi and
the course participants in La Plagne, France - spring 1975?

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[WillyTex]

> > The question is, why do you hate the Mormons?
> >
Robert:
> I don't 'Hate' Mormons..I just think they are 
> brainwashed morons...
>
Oh, that sounds so much nicer, Robert!

> I concluded that the religion was made up, so 
> Smithy could get laid by as many women as he 
> wanted to screw...
> 
And, you DON'T hate that? 

> I just see them as another branch of 
> Christianity gone mad...
>
So, you're not going to vote for Mitt Romney! 

What would a person's religion have to do with 
them running for public office? You voted for 
Barack Obama, right? Didn't he worship in an 
evangelical Christian church with Jermiah 
Wright? Joe Biden is a Catholic and you voted 
for him, right? 

You are not making any sense, Robert. 

So, I'm thinking that you're very prejudiced 
and a biased sort, who bases their own political 
voting decision on what religion a political 
candidate supports. From what I've read on FFL,
you hate Mormons and Christians and Jews.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

"The officially implemented racist policies of the 
Mormon Church that lasted well over 120 years up 
until 1978 - and their ongoing political campaign 
of bigotry against full equal treatment under the 
law for gays surely doesn't speak well of them, 
eh?

"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would 
confine them by strict law to their own species..."

~~  Founder of the LDS Church, criminal huckster 
and serial adulterer, Joseph Smith, Jr., January 
2nd, 1845, History of the Church, volume 5, pages 
218-219

Subject: Re: MORMON RAPIST WARREN JEFFS...
Author: John Manning
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon, ut.general, 
talk.rape, alt.prisons, alt.crime
Date: July 27, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/2u54gn2

RE: [FairfieldLife] Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of tartbrain
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:41 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Deep Decadent Lesh Avidya

 

  

(Hindu-style) enlightenment and liberation, as well as lesh avidya, are
premised on one's karma: sanchita (the huge mt. range that we could never
take on in one life) and prarabdha (the small satchel that we do take on
this life.) 

Liberation occurs when the seeds of sanchita karma are "roasted", that is,
burned in knowledge such that they can no longer germinate - they can no
longer propel us into a new incarnation. One is free from the cycle of human
birth and death. (And if one is not aware of this occurring, they are most
probably not enlightened -- despite their flowery words proclaiming that).

However, liberation cannot burn up prarabdha karma -- everyone must live
that out in this life. So, lets say one took on some really decadent karma
in this life -- but they also were able to gain liberation. The lesh avidya
is all that intensely decadent prarabdha karma. Its a very heavy lesh avidya
The liberated one, experience Unity, with the ability to raise those around
him (e.g., "Blazing Brahman" and yet be the most intense womenizer, drinker,
drug user, gambler, con man, liar, cheat, smoker, meat eater that one has
ever seen.

Another jivan-mukti may have the loveliest of prarabdha karma and be full of
love, hugs, and gentleness.

What is the mystery?

This is interesting. I've been thinking about it since you posted it. If
things really work this way, it would explain a lot. Do you think that one's
prarabdha karma is somewhat representative of the overall quality of one's
sanchita karma, or no correlation whatsoever? Seems to me that sattwic
people are more likely to attain liberation than Tamasic or rajasic,
although there are exceptions to every generality.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New low for FFL?

[Joe]

You're a regular riot, Willie-boy. Coming from the likes of you, your post is 
just hilarious!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Bhairitu:
> > > > Apparently Willy loves to see his tax dollars 
> > > > spent on killing people building empire. He 
> > > > loves seeing your sons and daughters maimed 
> > > > or killed in foreign lands to support to support 
> > > > his psychopathic agenda...
> > > >
> Joe:
> > Yep, Willy-boy is, by almost any measure, seriously 
> > damaged goods...not taken seriously here by anyone 
> > that I know of.
> >
> You sound really angry and upset, Joe. Apparently you
> and Bhariru voted for Barack Obama, who ordered the
> surge in Afghanistan, but I voted for Ron Paul. 
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> This has got to be a new low for FFL - if Rick and
> the other moderators had any balls at all they would 
> ban Joe and Barry2 for these kinds of personal attacks,
> or at least ask them to be more moderate.
> 
> This is just outrageous!
> 
> 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and 
> considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, 
> insults and excessive venting. "Speak the truth that 
> is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some 
> time to gain composure before writing or pushing the 
> send button...
> 
> FFL Guidelines:
> http://tinyurl.com/26ph4gc
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] New low for FFL?

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
> Bhairitu:
>   
 Apparently Willy loves to see his tax dollars 
 spent on killing people building empire. He 
 loves seeing your sons and daughters maimed 
 or killed in foreign lands to support to support 
 his psychopathic agenda...

 
> Joe:
>   
>> Yep, Willy-boy is, by almost any measure, seriously 
>> damaged goods...not taken seriously here by anyone 
>> that I know of.
>>
>> 
> You sound really angry and upset, Joe. Apparently you
> and Bhariru voted for Barack Obama, who ordered the
> surge in Afghanistan, but I voted for Ron Paul. 
>
> Go figure.
>
> This has got to be a new low for FFL - if Rick and
> the other moderators had any balls at all they would 
> ban Joe and Barry2 for these kinds of personal attacks,
> or at least ask them to be more moderate.
>
> This is just outrageous!
>
> 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and 
> considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, 
> insults and excessive venting. "Speak the truth that 
> is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some 
> time to gain composure before writing or pushing the 
> send button...
>
> FFL Guidelines:
> http://tinyurl.com/26ph4gc 
Can't stand the heat in the kitchen, eh?  Thought so.

(To the tune of Texas Waltz)
Have you seen Willy,
the FFL hillbilly,
the silly right wing nut job?
He's such a dilly,
that FFL hillbilly,
lunching on salsa with
his roast prairie dog.

Have you seen Willy,
the FFL hillbilly,
waltzing around very proud.
He's such a dilly,
that FFL hillbilly,
too bad he has not
a real thought in his head.

(others can add verses here)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[Joe]

You sound real upset Willie-boy. I understand. I'd be upset too if I were you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> Joe:
> > "Babji" and "Dorx" hate Mormons? How do you know 
> > this Willie-boy?
> > 
> > Where you come from "silence indicates agreement"? 
> > Where do you come from Willie-boy?
> > 
> > Do you have a job? What is it Willie-boy?
> > 
> Is this guy 'Joe' an adult or just infantile?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > By referring to lesh avidya Jerry tries to minimize
> > how imperfect the guy was.  Maharishi likened this
> > remains of ignorance to the greasiness left on the
> > hand when throwing off a butter ball (never
> > explaining why one would have it in your hand in the
> > first place or where it might land),
> 
> Metaphorically challenged much?

No, humor challenged much? This disconnect could be a microcosm for our 
different perspectives. 

> 
> > the ignorance remaining with the enlightened man still
> > in a body.  He was referring to some remaining sense
> > of duality in perceptions.  He wasn't talking about
> > banging nubile devotees in his 50's, a complete
> > breakdown of trust in his position. 
> 
> Well, he wasn't *telling* you that kind of behavior
> could be a function of lesh avidya. It sounds like
> Jerry might have been, though. Jerry may not have 
> intended to minimize MMY's sins so much as expand
> our understanding of lesh avidya.

Let me guess, he has been reading some Hindu books and believes them. I don't 
consider the Hindu religion as an authority on life nor accept Jerry as my 
teacher.  He is just another religious believer to me who serves the role of 
Maharishi apologist. 

> 
> I can think of several reasons why MMY might not have
> given you the expanded version. Some of them are more
> or less scurrilous, but one of them might not be. Can
> you imagine what it could be?

I can't even speculate on this.  Whatever information about his religion 
Maharishi doled out was self-serving.  He had to be selective because the 
system itself does not allow for "outcasts" to become enlightened. (That means 
you and me.) Maharishi made up his own version so you are basing all authority 
on him personally, not the system he came from.  I don't buy any of it.

But lets be clear about his claims about himself.  He was not an authorized 
teacher in the Hindu system like Guru Dev, he was claiming an even greater role 
in enlightening the world with his teaching.  He was being more grandiose than 
anyone in his own religious system about his role in history by going outside 
the caste system and teaching foreigners for cash.  And as predicted in his own 
system it seems to have corrupted him.

> 
> > So once again  Jerry in his aw-shucks manor, much
> > as he did when he told the governors at MIU that we
> > lost the court case because of the impure lives of
> > the initiators, offloads the blame to OUR mistaken
> > impression of the guy.
> 
> Wow. I didn't see anything in Rick's account suggesting
> Jerry was "offloading blame." And blame for what? For
> MMY's misbehavior?? That makes no sense.

For us not understanding that he was just a human when he spent his life posing 
as more than that.  It was Jerry's style I saw him do it many times.

> 
> > It is a false comparative. We may or may not have
> > believed he was perfect as per his own teaching about
> > attaining perfection in enlightenment, but we
> > expected him to rise above the bar of exploitative
> > butthole.  That is pretty far from the expectation
> > that he was some kind of Avatar don't you think?
> > 
> > I'm an imperfect human too but that doesn't give me
> > a pass on treating women with respect and as more
> > than just the latest hot biker chick to join the gang.
> 
> First, nobody's giving him a pass. That's a big fat
> straw man.

Jerry was.  It was his full-time job.  Or do you think he was unaware that his 
audience might be aware of Judith's book?  He was spinning it, his movement 
specialty.

> 
> Second, you haven't devoted your entire life to doing
> something you believe is going to save the world, either.

"Save the world?"  I have trouble taking that phrase seriously, it seems kind 
of grandiose to me. Who talks that way other than Michael Jackson?  People do 
good in specific areas if they do good at all outside their family and friends. 
Even Jonas Salk didn't "save the world" he prevented polio.  

And as far as how self-serving Maharishi's urgent "we gotta save the world so 
open your wallets and do as I say" goes, I'm not buying it anymore.  "Quick 
everyone move to my facilities and work for free, I'm gunna save the world!"  
Then after we renovated them he flipped them for a profit like the real estate 
investor he was.  Only he didn't have to pay minimum wage or taxes, pretty 
slick. 

> 
> Even if you don't believe in enlightenment, the dude
> was working his tail off for the well-being of other
> people.

If I don't believe in enlightenment then I also may not buy into his PR image 
of working his tail off for the well-being of the world. If he wasn't 
enlightened then a lot of what he said was BS and his whole self importance 
routine was an act.  I don't buy into his PR image.  He was a super religious 
guy building a financial empire.  Lots of greedy religious p

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> According to my sources, yes.
> 
Not everyone that lives in Texas is Latino, Joe.

> > > Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing 
> > > he got from Judy yesterday. 
> > 
> > Brazilian?
> >

[FairfieldLife] World to end next year!

[Hugo]

 Cancel the pension scheme, armageddon days are here again! The end is
not just nigh, it's in May 2011: Springs woman touts Armageddon's date
Marie Exley   of Colorado
Springs   is convinced that
Armageddon, the end of the world as written of in the Bible, will come
next year.

Her conviction is so strong that, though unemployed, she's paid
$1,200 to buy advertising space
  on 10 Springs bus
benches through October to get the word out. The ad says, "Save the
Date! Return of Christ:   May 21,
2011, WeCanKnow.com."

"I want to do all I can to get the message out," Exley, 31,
said.

Exley got the idea for the ads from listening to Family Radio, a
Christian broadcast heard on 55 stations in the United States, including
KFRY,   89.9 FM, in Pueblo. It's
hosted by controversial Christian leader Harold Camping.


Camping predicts Christ   will return
on the date in Exley's advertisement. Listeners in other states have
also purchased outdoor ad space  
to proclaim the date.

The ads are written and designed by the creators of WeCanKnow.com, an
Ohio-based web site devoted to reminding people of Christ's return.

"We hope it raises awareness and sends people to their Bible,"
said Robert Dunham,  
spokesman for WeCanKnow.com. "Time is running out, but there is
still time for salvation."

Predicting Christ's return and how the world would end is a
controversial subject within Christianity.

Camping teaches that it will happen with Christ's return, followed
by Armageddon, in which nonbelievers are destroyed by fire, and the
Rapture, in which believers are taken up to heaven.

Christian leaders have predicted the imminent end of the world since the
founding of the faith. Some who base their ideas on the Mayan calendar
say the world will end in 2012.
But others say the time of Christ's return and world's end can
never be known.

"It's just wrong," said John Fuller,
  pastor of Harbor Lights Church
  in Colorado Springs.
  "Those who make
predictions are just trying to get recognition for themselves."

Exley has bittersweet feelings about Camping's prediction.

"There are things I felt I always wanted to do — get married,
have a kid, travel more," she said. "But it's not about what
I want out of life. It's about what God wants."



Read more:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/unemployed-102074-springs-funded.html#ix\
zz0uzYDCbnK

 

[FairfieldLife] Fatwa for psychic octopus?

[Hugo]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks Octopus Paul  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the
Iranian leader, says Paul the Octopus, the sea creature that correctly
predicted the outcome of World Cup games, is a symbol of all that is
wrong with the western world.
Published: 1:30PM BST 27 Jul 2010
  [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks Octopus Paul ]
He claims that the octopus is a symbol of decadence and decay among "his
enemies".

Paul, who lives at the Oberhausen Sea Life Centre, in Germany, won the
hearts of the Spanish by predicting their World Cup victory.
He became an international star after predicting the outcome of all
seven German World Cup matches accurately.
However, the Iranian president accused the octopus of spreading "western
propaganda and superstition." Paul was mentioned by Mr Ahmadinejad on
various occasions during a speech in Tehran at the weekend.

"Those who believe in this type of thing cannot be the leaders of the
global nations that aspire, like Iran, to human perfection, basing
themselves in the love of all sacred values," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7912418/Mahmoud\
-Ahmadinejad-attacks-Octopus-Paul.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian

[WillyTex]

> > So, some 'heavy hitters' of the spiritual
> > world have written a book about your guru,
> > the Maharishi?
> >
Joe:
> No, you've *wildly* distorted the point I was
> making, very deliberately. You may not be
> psychotic, but you're almost as dishonest as
> Barry and Vaj.
> 
Barry and Vaj are dishonest?

[FairfieldLife] New low for FFL?

[WillyTex]

Bhairitu:
> > > Apparently Willy loves to see his tax dollars 
> > > spent on killing people building empire. He 
> > > loves seeing your sons and daughters maimed 
> > > or killed in foreign lands to support to support 
> > > his psychopathic agenda...
> > >
Joe:
> Yep, Willy-boy is, by almost any measure, seriously 
> damaged goods...not taken seriously here by anyone 
> that I know of.
>
You sound really angry and upset, Joe. Apparently you
and Bhariru voted for Barack Obama, who ordered the
surge in Afghanistan, but I voted for Ron Paul. 

Go figure.

This has got to be a new low for FFL - if Rick and
the other moderators had any balls at all they would 
ban Joe and Barry2 for these kinds of personal attacks,
or at least ask them to be more moderate.

This is just outrageous!

1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and 
considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, 
insults and excessive venting. "Speak the truth that 
is sweet" is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some 
time to gain composure before writing or pushing the 
send button...

FFL Guidelines:
http://tinyurl.com/26ph4gc 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> "Babji" and "Dorx" hate Mormons? How do you know 
> this Willie-boy?
> 
> Where you come from "silence indicates agreement"? 
> Where do you come from Willie-boy?
> 
> Do you have a job? What is it Willie-boy?
> 
Is this guy 'Joe' an adult or just infantile?

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[authfriend]

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

> > > It is a false comparative. We may or may not have
> > > believed he was perfect as per his own teaching about
> > > attaining perfection in enlightenment, but we
> > > expected him to rise above the bar of exploitative
> > > butthole.  That is pretty far from the expectation
> > > that he was some kind of Avatar don't you think?
> > > 
> > > I'm an imperfect human too but that doesn't give me
> > > a pass on treating women with respect and as more
> > > than just the latest hot biker chick to join the gang.
> > 
> > First, nobody's giving him a pass. That's a big fat
> > straw man.
> > 
> > Second, you haven't devoted your entire life to doing
> > something you believe is going to save the world, either.
> > 
> > Even if you don't believe in enlightenment, the dude
> > was working his tail off for the well-being of other
> > people. That doesn't excuse the misbehavior, of
> > course--sexual and otherwise--but it puts something
> > pretty weighty on the positive side of the ledger that
> > you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge.
> > 
> > Most of us are a mixture of good and bad, but most of
> > us also have pretty piddling little piles of each. Is
> > it really fair for us to point proudly to the smallness
> > of our pile of bad and feel smugly more virtuous than
> > someone with a much bigger pile of bad when their pile
> > of good is a whole lot bigger than ours as well?
> > 
> > What's the *percentage* of bad vs. good in a person's
> > life? All our lives are equal in that each one of them
> > adds up to 100 percent. If we're going to compare the
> > virtue of one life with that of another, shouldn't
> > we be comparing ratios?
> > 
> > If I get all snooty and think myself more virtuous
> > than you because I've always paid my taxes and you're
> > in jail for tax evasion, does it change the picture if
> > you've also spent your entire life looking for a cure
> > for cancer, while I've spent mine running a fashion
> > emporium for pets?
> 
> Great post, if we were dealing with a pet shop owner.
> But we aren't. 
> 
> A pet shop owner who tries to hide inconvenient kids 
> with a surrogate to protect his reputation can still
> be a pet shop owner. An enlightened man, not so much.

Boy, this could hardly be *less* relevant to the
analogy.

Sheesh, don't they teach metaphor and analogy in
school any longer?

You've even got it *reversed*: the guy in jail for
tax evasion is parallel to MMY, not the owner of the
pet fashion emporium (not "pet shop"--I picked
something irredeemably frivolous and trivial for a
reason).

And if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see
I stipulated the nonexistence of enlightenment to
cater to Curtis's beliefs.

> Which I think is the main problem with your bizarre 
> rationalisation,

What exactly do you think I was "rationalizing"?

Hint: Above I wrote, "That doesn't excuse the
misbehavior, of course" and above that, "Nobody's
giving him [MMY] a pass."

So what was I "rationalizing" if I wasn't trying to
excuse the misbehavior or to give MMY a pass?

 trouble is you conveniently deleted
> most of Curtises excellent points so it's hard to tell.

But I wasn't arguing with those points, you see. I 
was making an entirely different point. I *agree*
MMY's behavior was appalling, and have so stated
repeatedly here.

So what could I have been talking about?

(Gratuitous prediction: Barry will read Hugo's post--
because he's ignoring me, as he's told us--and
immediately pile on, before reading my response,
because he won't have read what I wrote any more
carefully than Hugo did.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Grain of "Salt" : movie review

[Mike Dixon]

Saw it opening day. I'd say it was worth seeing but thought of it as a female 
version of the Bourne movies. I left the theater almost feeling exhausted, 
battered and bruised.




From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 4:46:56 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A Grain of "Salt" : movie review

  
Just got back from seeing "Salt". Be sure to take your 18-wheeler with 
you as this action film with Angelina Jolie has a enough plot holes to 
drive one through it with ease. I think the script needed a little more 
work. Very definitely a popcorn movie though I would call it a "Rent 
It" over the "At the Movies" guys giving it at "See It!" BTW, "At the 
Movies" is only a couple more episodes of becoming history.

Take your 18 wheeler but leave your mind behind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944835/





  

[FairfieldLife] Re: In Fairfield, Give Peace a chance/Rick is Enlightened!

[Hugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > By referring to lesh avidya Jerry tries to minimize
> > how imperfect the guy was.  Maharishi likened this
> > remains of ignorance to the greasiness left on the
> > hand when throwing off a butter ball (never
> > explaining why one would have it in your hand in the
> > first place or where it might land),
> 
> Metaphorically challenged much?
> 
> > the ignorance remaining with the enlightened man still
> > in a body.  He was referring to some remaining sense
> > of duality in perceptions.  He wasn't talking about
> > banging nubile devotees in his 50's, a complete
> > breakdown of trust in his position. 
> 
> Well, he wasn't *telling* you that kind of behavior
> could be a function of lesh avidya. It sounds like
> Jerry might have been, though. Jerry may not have 
> intended to minimize MMY's sins so much as expand
> our understanding of lesh avidya.
> 
> I can think of several reasons why MMY might not have
> given you the expanded version. Some of them are more
> or less scurrilous, but one of them might not be. Can
> you imagine what it could be?
> 
> > So once again  Jerry in his aw-shucks manor, much
> > as he did when he told the governors at MIU that we
> > lost the court case because of the impure lives of
> > the initiators, offloads the blame to OUR mistaken
> > impression of the guy.
> 
> Wow. I didn't see anything in Rick's account suggesting
> Jerry was "offloading blame." And blame for what? For
> MMY's misbehavior?? That makes no sense.
> 
> > It is a false comparative. We may or may not have
> > believed he was perfect as per his own teaching about
> > attaining perfection in enlightenment, but we
> > expected him to rise above the bar of exploitative
> > butthole.  That is pretty far from the expectation
> > that he was some kind of Avatar don't you think?
> > 
> > I'm an imperfect human too but that doesn't give me
> > a pass on treating women with respect and as more
> > than just the latest hot biker chick to join the gang.
> 
> First, nobody's giving him a pass. That's a big fat
> straw man.
> 
> Second, you haven't devoted your entire life to doing
> something you believe is going to save the world, either.
> 
> Even if you don't believe in enlightenment, the dude
> was working his tail off for the well-being of other
> people. That doesn't excuse the misbehavior, of
> course--sexual and otherwise--but it puts something
> pretty weighty on the positive side of the ledger that
> you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge.
> 
> Most of us are a mixture of good and bad, but most of
> us also have pretty piddling little piles of each. Is
> it really fair for us to point proudly to the smallness
> of our pile of bad and feel smugly more virtuous than
> someone with a much bigger pile of bad when their pile
> of good is a whole lot bigger than ours as well?
> 
> What's the *percentage* of bad vs. good in a person's
> life? All our lives are equal in that each one of them
> adds up to 100 percent. If we're going to compare the
> virtue of one life with that of another, shouldn't
> we be comparing ratios?
> 
> If I get all snooty and think myself more virtuous
> than you because I've always paid my taxes and you're
> in jail for tax evasion, does it change the picture if
> you've also spent your entire life looking for a cure
> for cancer, while I've spent mine running a fashion
> emporium for pets?


Great post, if we were dealing with a pet shop owner.
But we aren't. 

A pet shop owner who tries to hide inconvenient kids 
with a surrogate to protect his reputation can still
be a pet shop owner. An enlightened man, not so much.

Which I think is the main problem with your bizarre 
rationalisation, trouble is you conveniently deleted
most of Curtises excellent points so it's hard to tell.