[FairfieldLife] Stare at boobs for longer life: Study
So there, BillyG. :-) :-) :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVgKoruWdA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVgKoruWdA Stare at boobs for longer life: Study by Neharika Sabharwal http://www.themedguru.com/user/neharika_sabharwal - December 6, 2009 [strongFrankfurt, Germany, December 6 --/strong A rather bizarre study carried out by German researchers suggests that staring at women's breasts is good for men's health and increases their life expectancy.] Frankfurt, Germany, December 6 -- A rather bizarre study carried out by German researchers suggests that staring at women's breasts is good for men's health and increases their life expectancy. According to Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist and author of the study, gawking at women's breasts is a healthy practice, almost at par with an intense exercise regime, that prolongs the lifespan of a man by five years. She added, Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out. A five-year research on 500 men Researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany did an in-depth analysis of 200 healthy males over a period of five years. Half the volunteers were instructed to ogle at the breasts of women daily, while the rest were told to refrain from doing so. At the close of the study, the researchers noted that the men who stared at the breasts of females on a regular basis exhibited lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and lesser episodes of coronary artery disease. Sexual desire linked to better blood circulation The researchers declared that sexual desire gives rise to better blood circulation that signifies an overall improved health. Weatherby explained the concept stating, Sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves blood circulation. There's no question: Gazing at breasts makes men healthy. Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of stroke and heart attack in half. We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years. In addition, she also recommended that men over 40 should gaze at larger breasts daily for 10 minutes. The German research is believed to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inside a troubled fundamentalist Mormon sect
CORRECTION to my previous email. Should read Mormons instead of Scientology. 11:00 AM - The dogs are tired of Barry's bullshit - they are not ready for a third walk to stimulate his paranoia. Barry, determined to make yet another convincing post denunciating TMO MMY on FFL, dumps the dogs and heads to the nearest Internet cafe and reads an article on Scientology Mormons.His imagination runs wild as he weaves his magic comparing Scientology Mormons and TM0/MMY. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Continuing with the Is it real, or Memorex theme I started by posting the criteria for pathological social disorder and inviting people to compare them to gurus I have known up close, here's an interesting article from Salon. You guys should be happy that Maharishi died quietly, with nothing more pressing on his mind than erecting as many phallic tributes to his name as possible. He might have started to fade out during one of his Damn Democracy or Scorpion Nation phases, and dashed off a tract like the one Warren Jeffs sent to Obama recently. Inside a troubled fundamentalist Mormon sectAs Warren Jeffs sends a bizarre doomsday warning to Obama from jail, we look at the continuing strife of the FLDS By Carol McKinley http://www.salon.com/author/carol_mckinley/index.html These are tough times for America's most infamous polygamous sect. Their prophet, Warren Jeffs, has been slinging orders to his people like lightning bolts -- from a pay phone in his jail cell. Followers have been told to rebaptize, to regulate their sex lives and to build, build, build as he prepares them for Zion and the end of the world. Three years after the raid that brought his fundamentalist Mormon sect to national attention, Jeffs is suffering the consequences of incendiary evidence seized by authorities, but it's his followers who are suffering the wrath. As Isaac Wyler, one of the church's most vocal apostates, says: He's a madman. As Jeffs awaits trial on child sexual assault and bigamy charges in West Texas, members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, are struggling to pay his thousands of dollars in attorney fees. They live in poverty and suffer his condemnation but don't ask questions because they believe Jeffs holds the key to Zion. A rambling 900-page warning recently sent from Jeffs to President Obama may signal his desperation. The bizarre proclamation landed on the desks of at least 600 heads of state two Fridays ago. It's titled A Warning to the Nation and in it, Jeffs, a self-proclaimed prophet, challenges the U.S. government. He says God has planned a holocaust of judgment for America worse than any WMD. Let my people go, he threatens ... or else. He also wants to be let out of jail so that he can plan for the end of the world. The letter, which weighs three pounds, was signed by thousands of church members, including children as young as 8 years old. In it, Jeffs promises God will destroy the wicked with a devastating earthquake -- a shaking of the earth in a place in thy land not known as a usual place of violent shaking unto the loss of many lives. That place? President Obama's home state of Illinois. When? Soon. To add intrigue, Jeffs, who claims he prophesied Hurricane Katrina, says that if the earthquake doesn't work, God will send a great storm to thy land crippling thy nation again. * Continue reading http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/03/05/inside_flds_trouble_brewin\ \ g/index.html Jeffs may think he has superpowers, but the Texas justice system is his kryptonite. This summer, he goes on trial on charges of sexual assault on a child and bigamy. He's told his followers that if he's convicted the jail walls will crumble. But for now, Jeffs spends much of his time on a pay phone nailed to his solitary cell, using calling cards bought in the prison commissary. He's a paranoid schizophrenic, said a Texas Ranger investigating the case, who asked not to be named. And he's freaking out about losing control of his people. In just a few weeks, Jeffs has gone on a rampage, kicking out at least 40 of his most pious men. One of those faithful is Merril Jessop, a 70-year-old FLDS bishop. Another is Wendell Nielson, the first counselor in the Quorum of the First Presidency. Still another is Willie Jessop, a man who has been described by followers as Jeffs' bodyguard. I began looking into Jeffs and his latest antics while reporting on a recent story for HDNet's television magazine show World Report. Since then, I haven't stopped. The plight of these people gets under your skin -- and their saga keeps getting stranger. My conversations with Texas Rangers and ex-FLDSers convinced me that some of those still inside the religion are petrified to leave. (None will speak on the record, though I have spoken in passing with them many times.) They tell
[FairfieldLife] Ashtavakra Samhita (aSTaavakra-saMhitaa aka a. giitaa)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2673274/AshTavakra-Geeta At the end of the introduction is a cute story revealing how Shrii RaamakRSNa lured Svaamii Vivekaananda to accept advaita.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyes Wide Open Mantra Practice
Ouch..azgrey this must have hurt, really this is not helping you nail down the third spot of the FFL neo-advaita troika. Please control yourself, check with Barry and Vaj on the proper protocol. Not only are you are unenlightened but you are also not the brightest bulb around here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Well, I could get all technical about it and reiterate that Akashic Escrow Accounts only become available post Brahman Consciousness, subset four, section two, but rather than quibble, I enjoyed your response! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: I deposited a retainer in an escrow account in the Akashic Bank of Trust. How did you not know that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Hey I'm not answering any of those questions without a *significant* donation in advance...just so I know you are a serious seeker. So send in that check, and we'll talk! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for the reply Jim. How is the view from up there? Can I call you Jim? Is Sri Jim or Flanegin-ji a more appropriate moniker? I would relish the opportunity to learn more of this exalted state you find yourself in and how you came to find yourself, ah, enlightened. Was it a sudden thing? Did it develop in stages? Were there signposts along the way? Thanks for your time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Yes, please hold me up as an example of a TM enlightened guy - the benefits to both of us will be incalculable. I can hardly wait - lol! Are you doing it yet?? Am I higher than you, yet? Does it go something like, TC - standing on a shoebox, CC - piggyback ride, GC - sitting on your shoulders, UC - standing on your shoulders?? A veritable Cirque du Soliel of consciousness! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_reply@ wrote: So we should hold you up as an example of what it is to be a TM enlightened guy? Interesting. You do still claim to have attained the loftiest of states? What level? CC? GC? UC? BC? BMFOC? ;-) Please, share. I, personally, like Joe, still enjoy my TM practice, though rarely 2x daily and TMSP...well, not so much. Taking formal Mindfullness/Vipasanna instruction was one of the best things I have ever done. Not at all what I thought it would be. Eyes open. Eyes closed. Only four postures appropriate for meditation. Laying down. Sitting. Standing. Walking. Did I miss anything? lol Sorry WillyTex, crouched over a prairie-dog with needful thoughts is sooo inappropriate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: translation: Vaj very much wants you to drop your interest in TM, and take up Vipasanna meditation. He spends hours each week, month after month, glorifying his little technique and trashing Maharishi and all things TM. In other words, he is no different from the Christian fundamentalist insisting that you accept Jesus as your savior vs. the Hindoo devils. In five years or so he hasn't changed anyone's mind, but his zeal remains undiminished - what a hoot. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 4, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Michael Flatley wrote: In Kriya Yoga (and probably in TM too) complete absorption into Samadhi leaves the Body in a trance like state, completely still with no heart rate or breath and sustained by prana (life) itself. Great Yogis can stay in this period for great length of times, even MMY states in his transcription The Vedas that, ...the body, the mind, the entire functioning of the inner machinery, all metabolic rate *comes to zero*. MMY The Vedas I've heard that Yogananda's body was not showing signs of decay for some number of days after he died. Regarding MMY, Charlie Lutes said that on several occasions he watched over the body for three days while it was wrapped up like a mummy. This indicated that MMY was a real Yogi. Did MMY practice a lot of hatha yoga in his youth? He was never big on physical yoga was he? MMY's yoga asanas were developed by a gym teacher. So his knowledge was borrowed from others. I've tried to verify the stories of MMY going into a continuum of silence, whilst wrapped, mummy-like, for days and found them to most likely be more made up stories by Charlie. According to a Shankaracharya who was also a disciple of Swami
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. I honestly think that the reason they can compartmentalize this way is that they've never experienced the latter for long enough to notice that the underlying sense of Self is the same, and have never experienced the former for long enough to realize that it has depth, and degrees of transcendence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyes Wide Open Mantra Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: No, that's not what I'm saying. Very few people will naturally transcend the breadth of mind without either a natural pre-propensity (purva-punya, good past life cred) or just happen to stumble on the state through alternate nostril pranayama or other accident. Then, when the sun and moon flows evenly, the karmic impediments drop away, the karmic faucet is turned off. Hey, then anything can happen. One of the most important factors is Guru's grace.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. I honestly think that the reason they can compartmentalize this way is that they've never experienced the latter for long enough to notice that the underlying sense of Self is the same, and have never experienced the former for long enough to realize that it has depth, and degrees of transcendence. Have you experienced the latter? If so was it with the dogs or without them? Did the realization that TM'ers are compartmentalizing occur while walking the dogs on the beach, in the park, on the street to the coffee shop, on the street to the pub or on the street to the Internet cafe?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Film Mini-Review: The Adjustment Bureau
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: So much for Barry's Dick expertise... I think he rated it a 3.5. In most circles that may not be enough to really be noticed, or appreciated by the general public. Please note that I was using Roger Ebert's star rating system, as in 3.5 stars out of 4. If I were writing a review for the IMDB, with their rating system, I would have given it a 9 out of 10. I leave it up to you to imagine which of these scales can be more accurately mapped to linear measurement, and inches. :-) It's not a great film, BTW, in the sense of American Beauty or Citizen Kane. It's just an entertaining and intelligent one. These days I tend to give such films slightly higher ratings than they deserve, because there are so few of them. Especially in the genre of science fiction.
[FairfieldLife] Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice
Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice By Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya The Sanskrit term 'sadhana' means a systematic and disciplined path of spiritual practice under the guidance of a qualified Acharya (Spiritual Teacher). When a person feels called to devote themselves more fully to a systematic spiritual discipline to achieve self-realization and God-realization, they then begin to follow a sadhana practice. Merely having a curious interest in spiritual topics has no meaning unless one is also engaging in a dedicated spiritual practice designed to bring spiritual realization to life. Sadhana, thus, represents the very beginning of meaningful spiritual pursuit. The following is a collection of practical, scripturally-based, guidelines from the teachings of Sanatana Dharma that will help us to more fully develop our innate spiritual potential. Sadhana, or spiritual practice, must be performed regularly with sincerity, humility, openness, and determination. Just as we all perform our daily routines of eating, sleeping, and bathing without fail, similarly we should practice our daily spiritual sadhana without fail to refine ourselves and to advance in spiritual life. We should monitor our progress every day by asking ourselves if today we have improved ourselves and come closer to God. By following a daily spiritual practice under the guidance of Sri Guru, we can continuously deepen our experience and realization of the Divine VISIT HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS INFORMATIVE ARTICLE: http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?36-Daily-Sadhana Please forward this information to all sincere spiritual seekers. Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti
[FairfieldLife] Re: Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice
Doesn't spiritual practice involve walking dogs along the beach, park or the streets as a no practice mocking and ridiculing others who actually do spiritual practices? You are going to irritate the heretic now with your dogma. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dharmacentral no_reply@... wrote: Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice By Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya The Sanskrit term 'sadhana' means a systematic and disciplined path of spiritual practice under the guidance of a qualified Acharya (Spiritual Teacher). When a person feels called to devote themselves more fully to a systematic spiritual discipline to achieve self-realization and God-realization, they then begin to follow a sadhana practice. Merely having a curious interest in spiritual topics has no meaning unless one is also engaging in a dedicated spiritual practice designed to bring spiritual realization to life. Sadhana, thus, represents the very beginning of meaningful spiritual pursuit. The following is a collection of practical, scripturally-based, guidelines from the teachings of Sanatana Dharma that will help us to more fully develop our innate spiritual potential. Sadhana, or spiritual practice, must be performed regularly with sincerity, humility, openness, and determination. Just as we all perform our daily routines of eating, sleeping, and bathing without fail, similarly we should practice our daily spiritual sadhana without fail to refine ourselves and to advance in spiritual life. We should monitor our progress every day by asking ourselves if today we have improved ourselves and come closer to God. By following a daily spiritual practice under the guidance of Sri Guru, we can continuously deepen our experience and realization of the Divine VISIT HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS INFORMATIVE ARTICLE: http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?36-Daily-Sadhana Please forward this information to all sincere spiritual seekers. Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti
[FairfieldLife] Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. My experience is that it's pretty much the opposite. The people I've run into on this planet whom I con- sider the most evolved, or whose brains were firing on the most cylinders all had one trait in common. They were very aware of their own patterns, the *trends* or *habits* or (in spiritual parlance) the *samskaras* that tend to repeat themselves in their actions. What I've noticed is that those who have invested heavily in the spontaneous right action or just act, assume that it's correct, and never look at whether I'm merely acting out of habit meme tend, over a period of years and decades, to actually *lose the ability to self-assess*. I have a friend whose entire life is a model of spontaneous action. Like me, he loves movies. Unlike me, he lacks any sense of discrimination about them. No matter what film we'd go to see, I could always count on and predict his exit line as we left the movie theater: That was the BEST movie I've ever seen. I was not the only one of his friends to notice this, and laugh at it, both behind his back and to his face. He literally no longer had the ability to *remember* any previous film he'd seen, or assess how the latest one may have really related to it. He just acted in the moment, with unintentionally comic effect. I see a lot of spontaneous right action meme believers on this forum doing exactly the same thing. Many others have commented that they don't seem aware that their trends or habits are predict- able, a broken record. Some are *such* a broken record that many others have given up reading what they post, knowing that there will never be a change in those trends, habits, and samskaras. They will repeat themselves every week, every month, and every year for the rest of these people's lives. Why bother with such repetition? And the people who do this -- who *are* broken records in terms of their enslavement to their trends, habits, and samskaras -- never notice. Their belief in the spontaneous right action meme has become so *foundational* to their world view that they can no longer even *conceive* of self-assessing, let alone self-monitoring. I'm not convinced that this is a Good Thing, spir- itually or otherwise. Castaneda and others made some good points about analyzing our habits, and the spiritual value of going out of our way to *break* those habits from time to time. I have followed this advice, and have found it useful. The value of doing the same old same old over and over and over...uh...not so much. The end point of buying completely into this meme seems to me to be a decided lack of aware- ness that one *has* trends, habits, and samskaras, and thus an unwillingness to ever part with them. Some who have invested heavily in this meme have done so to such an extent that they actually get *angry* when someone points out these trends, so obvious to everyone else. They call the pointer- outers Liars! because *they honestly can't seen the trends themselves*. Call me crazy, but this doesn't seem like a very evolved state of attention to me. Some may see doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results as a sign of spontaneous right action. I tend to see it as Einstein's definition of insanity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. I honestly think that the reason they can compartmentalize this way is that they've never experienced the latter for long enough to notice that the underlying sense of Self is the same, and have never experienced the former for long enough to realize that it has depth, and degrees of transcendence. Very well said, Barry. For me personally, I don't use either word, CC or transcending. In the post Lawson was responding to, I had said that I am basically in the 'position of an observer'. Even if you are just awareness, being aware of itself, there is an observer. And, as you rightly observed, if we speak of different depth of transcendence, or degrees of awareness, there is an observer. I think, with a certain wakefulness, for me, old-style TM transcending isn't even possible for me anymore. So, I guess, I am lost to plain-vanilla TM forever. I can't be reconverted ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. I honestly think that the reason they can compartmentalize this way is that they've never experienced the latter for long enough to notice that the underlying sense of Self is the same, and have never experienced the former for long enough to realize that it has depth, and degrees of transcendence. Very well said, Barry. For me personally, I don't use either word, CC or transcending. In the post Lawson was responding to, I had said that I am basically in the 'position of an observer'. Even if you are just awareness, being aware of itself, there is an observer. And, as you rightly observed, if we speak of different depth of transcendence, or degrees of awareness, there is an observer. I think, with a certain wakefulness, for me, old-style TM transcending isn't even possible for me anymore. So, I guess, I am lost to plain-vanilla TM forever. I can't be reconverted ;-) As Nabby might say, Get a checking. That will fix anything that's wrong with you. :-) More seriously though, I understand what you're saying, and agree with you from the point of view of my own experience. The first time I ever experienced clear transcending with TM was five years after I started it, in Fiuggi, on my TTC. And I tended to notice it then because it...uh...went on for eight hours. Not a thought in that whole period. However, there was depth to that non-thought, still a sense of expan- sion or going further. Interestingly, at the end of this eight-hour transcendence, it didn't go away when I opened my eyes; it continued 24/7 for some weeks. I thought I was in Maharishi's CC. I *also* thought, at that time, because there had never been any dogma proposed by Maharishi that sug- gested that such experiences can be transitory, that I was *permanently* in CC. Didn't happen. Something better happened. I kept changing, and got to exper- ience more and different states of attention. Still am. Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. As I was hinting at in my reply to wayback this morn- ing, when it comes to fluctuating states of attention or consciousness, I just take it as it comes, in a goal-less sort of way. I honestly don't perceive much value in being able to stay in samadhi for long periods of time in sitting meditation, or to *remain* in samadhi as a 24/7 background to thoughts and actions when not in meditation. Whatever happens is whatever happens. No BFD. Let others pursue the unicorn of higher states of consciousness if they want; I'm content with whatever state I happen to find myself in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Paulo Barbosa tprobert@... wrote: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him (Romans 6:8). We, with Christ, die for the things of this world, Now this is clearly the inward stroke of transcendence futiles and deceitful, and we proceed living abundantly and this is the outward stroke. In both cases the observer is there. So is the observer still present in the middle, in between inside and outside strokes? the spiritual things that truly cheer up the heart. Paulo Barbosa www.ministeriopararefletir.com tprobert@...
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. Out of TC-by-itself. In the TM context, if you are witnessING, you are said to be experiencing the Self (Being, the Witness) along with activity (including mental activity in meditation, known as witnessing one's meditation). Judy, to make a distinction here between being the witness, or the natural state of being an observer and witnessING (I first thought you were making a joke about your mantra by capitalizING), is like hair-splittING, especially if you are the non-doer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Because the Self is NOT a state. Transcendence is a state. I don't believe I said the Self was a state. ??? No, you didn't say that, but you equated final transcendence with self-realization, and transcendence with 'No thought, no mantra'. No thought, no mantra though is only a state; Vaj, Empty and me, we have suggested, that no mantra, no thought could also be mental laya instead of real transcendence (which in Vedanta would be equivalent to the SELF) Yet, the Self is not a state, it is here right now, and it can be recognized with mantra, and with thought, as it is independend from such a state. And it will NOT be *automatically* realized, if there is no thought and no mantra. So the Self/Soul not being realized, and having no thought-mental quietude, is really mental laya only. In another thread, you just identified being a 'possibilian', which among others means an uncertainty of the existence of a soul. You are aware that Soul and Atma are identical in Vedanta? That may be different in Buddhism. You may talk to our Buddhists about the various possibilities, i am sure they exist, but in Vedanta Self realization without the Self is simply not possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. I honestly think that the reason they can compartmentalize this way is that they've never experienced the latter for long enough to notice that the underlying sense of Self is the same, and have never experienced the former for long enough to realize that it has depth, and degrees of transcendence. Very well said, Barry. For me personally, I don't use either word, CC or transcending. In the post Lawson was responding to, I had said that I am basically in the 'position of an observer'. Even if you are just awareness, being aware of itself, there is an observer. And, as you rightly observed, if we speak of different depth of transcendence, or degrees of awareness, there is an observer. I think, with a certain wakefulness, for me, old-style TM transcending isn't even possible for me anymore. So, I guess, I am lost to plain-vanilla TM forever. I can't be reconverted ;-) As Nabby might say, Get a checking. That will fix anything that's wrong with you. :-) I am uncheckable, Barry, my suggestability is basically O. More seriously though, I understand what you're saying, and agree with you from the point of view of my own experience. The first time I ever experienced clear transcending with TM was five years after I started it, in Fiuggi, on my TTC. And I tended to notice it then because it...uh...went on for eight hours. Not a thought in that whole period. However, there was depth to that non-thought, still a sense of expan- sion or going further. Interestingly, at the end of this eight-hour transcendence, it didn't go away when I opened my eyes; it continued 24/7 for some weeks. I thought I was in Maharishi's CC. I *also* thought, at that time, because there had never been any dogma proposed by Maharishi that sug- gested that such experiences can be transitory, that I was *permanently* in CC. Didn't happen. Something better happened. I kept changing, and got to exper- ience more and different states of attention. Still am. Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. As I was hinting at in my reply to wayback this morn- ing, when it comes to fluctuating states of attention or consciousness, I just take it as it comes, in a goal-less sort of way. I honestly don't perceive much value in being able to stay in samadhi for long periods of time in sitting meditation, or to *remain* in samadhi as a 24/7 background to thoughts and actions when not in meditation. Whatever happens is whatever happens. No BFD. Let others pursue the unicorn of higher states of consciousness if they want; I'm content with whatever state I happen to find myself in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dharmacentral no_reply@... wrote: Principles of Daily Spiritual Practice By Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya The Sanskrit term 'sadhana' means a systematic and disciplined path of spiritual practice under the guidance of a qualified Acharya (Spiritual Teacher). TM? Is TM enough? When a person feels called to devote themselves more fully to a systematic spiritual discipline to achieve self-realization and God-realization, they then begin to follow a sadhana practice. Like, the daily reading of FairfieldLife Merely having a curious interest in spiritual topics has no meaning unless one is also engaging in a dedicated spiritual practice designed to bring spiritual realization to life. Sadhana, thus, represents the very beginning of meaningful spiritual pursuit. Mindful FairfieldLife The following is a collection of practical, scripturally-based, guidelines from the teachings of Sanatana Dharma that will help us to more fully develop our innate spiritual potential. Sadhana, or spiritual practice, must be performed regularly with sincerity, humility, openness, and determination. Just as we all perform our daily routines of eating, sleeping, and bathing without fail, similarly we should practice our daily spiritual sadhana without fail to refine ourselves and to advance in spiritual life. We should monitor our progress every day by asking ourselves if today we have improved ourselves and come closer to God. The Living FairfieldLife By following a daily spiritual practice under the guidance of our FaifieldLife guidelines and moderators, we can continuously deepen our experience and realization of the Divine VISIT HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS INFORMATIVE ARTICLE: http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?36-Daily-Sadhana Please forward this information to all sincere spiritual seekers. Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyes Wide Open Mantra Practice
Bluscout this is concise and well said. It is my opinion and experience too. In Fairfield, pursuit of the wider spiritual cultivation is what has been much of the history of the last decade or so. Beyond transcending is what is missed with just TM. Some people look pretty bad in fact for lack of dealing with the fitness of the subtle bodies. This is a lot of what the saints have come around helping people with in their spiritual progress. Bit by bit people are getting it. More recently John Douglas has been extremely helpful to the inner TM circle on and around campus with this. His darshan and also the processes as techniques he teaches are chakra based and have been very effective in a secular way that is more generally acceptable around here. Thus far people are not being kicked out of the domes for having seen John Douglas or practicing his techniques. Also, thus far the people organizing for him are still in the domes. And yet the various satsangs all around town attend to this more complete growth in their programming. It's very spiritual place in practice that way around Fairfield in fact. On the ground. -Dug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: Well it would mean some are reaching the bottom of the ocean (TC) in the bubble diagram, and others are only 'blanking out' at one of the subtle waves towards the bottom, in a laya (Non-TC). This is my opinion as well: Much of what is described in TM transcending is only laya. Think of the sleeping elephants. They are blockages you haven't dealt with. You are only partly awake. Some of these blockages are the so-called knots associated with different chakras, so called granthis. So actually only part of the system is 'awake', the other part sleeps. The crucial difference is, that this partial transcending, mental laya, is not the awakening of the Atma, the soul. Chakras, Soul, are not mentioned in the argumentation of Lawson and Judy. If you mention them, they ignore it as if you have never said anything. Ramana Maharshi says, that in awakening, there is a very fine nadi between Sahasrara and heart, which gets activated, the socalled atma-nadi. Shankara speaks of the same in his Brahma Sutra commentary. As long as the Atma is not awakened, your transcendence will only be laya. You could go on with laya forever, it doesn't lead to the Atma. Unless you don't realize the Atma, according to Vedanta, there will not be any realization. If you think that's OK that seems like a pretty bad rationalization to accept. It's effectively resigning yourself to a limbo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyes Wide Open Mantra Practice
I agree. This has been an enjoyable discussion, although I participated mostly as an observer. It has given me a bit of a new perspective. On the other hand, I am not much given to such analysis anymore. Still, I found some of the distinctions made quite interesting. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Bluscout this is concise and well said. It is my opinion and experience too. In Fairfield, pursuit of the wider spiritual cultivation is what has been much of the history of the last decade or so. Beyond transcending is what is missed with just TM. Some people look pretty bad in fact for lack of dealing with the fitness of the subtle bodies. This is a lot of what the saints have come around helping people with in their spiritual progress. Bit by bit people are getting it. More recently John Douglas has been extremely helpful to the inner TM circle on and around campus with this. His darshan and also the processes as techniques he teaches are chakra based and have been very effective in a secular way that is more generally acceptable around here. Thus far people are not being kicked out of the domes for having seen John Douglas or practicing his techniques. Also, thus far the people organizing for him are still in the domes. And yet the various satsangs all around town attend to this more complete growth in their programming. It's very spiritual place in practice that way around Fairfield in fact. On the ground. -Dug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: Well it would mean some are reaching the bottom of the ocean (TC) in the bubble diagram, and others are only 'blanking out' at one of the subtle waves towards the bottom, in a laya (Non-TC). This is my opinion as well: Much of what is described in TM transcending is only laya. Think of the sleeping elephants. They are blockages you haven't dealt with. You are only partly awake. Some of these blockages are the so-called knots associated with different chakras, so called granthis. So actually only part of the system is 'awake', the other part sleeps. The crucial difference is, that this partial transcending, mental laya, is not the awakening of the Atma, the soul. Chakras, Soul, are not mentioned in the argumentation of Lawson and Judy. If you mention them, they ignore it as if you have never said anything. Ramana Maharshi says, that in awakening, there is a very fine nadi between Sahasrara and heart, which gets activated, the socalled atma-nadi. Shankara speaks of the same in his Brahma Sutra commentary. As long as the Atma is not awakened, your transcendence will only be laya. You could go on with laya forever, it doesn't lead to the Atma. Unless you don't realize the Atma, according to Vedanta, there will not be any realization. If you think that's OK that seems like a pretty bad rationalization to accept. It's effectively resigning yourself to a limbo.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Possibilian
I want to go on record as agreeing with almost everything wayback says here, especially So I don't sit around looking at life and people and thinking they are not really responsible for what their brains come up with. I do hold people accountable, myself included. This is the point Barry's consistently gotten wrong about how most determinists think. Basically, adherence to determinism doesn't change a thing about how one behaves in the world, doesn't change a thing about how one views responsibility. Determinism is a theoretical view that has no practical implications. Whether 24/7 *experience* of determinism--i.e., what's called enlightenment--makes a difference, I don't know, and I don't care. It would be absurd for one who isn't having that experience 24/7 to adopt the premise I am not the Doer, even if one is inclined to think that's the Way It Is in Ultimate Reality. As long as I'm not experiencing that Ultimate Reality, it makes no sense whatsoever to behave as if I were. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Ad that is EXACTLY what my position was in the earlier discussion on the brain and auotpilot sense when witnessing and howfor most of us it feels as if we are deciders altho it is possible we are not, really. Two questions. First, isn't it just as possible that it's the autopilot sense that is the illusion as it is that being the decider is the illusion? Yes, and I wonder about it. Because if the autopilot witnessing sense is an illusion, then meditation, religion, ritual, chanting, yoga and all sorts of other practices that seem to cultivate this experience, are suspect. But it seems to me that since most people who experience this feel good about it, and function well, then it is a good thing. But if it ends up being some sort of manipulation of the brain in a nonhealthy way, then this is not good. If I had to bet on it all, I would say it is a really good thing and a better style of brain functioning to have the witnessing, no matter what language you use to describe it. I had a very strong experience of this when I was 18 and had not yet learned to meditate and had no preconceived ideas about any of this. I loved it. And functioned very well indeed. Second, can you give me a reason why one would prefer to believe more in not the decider than decider? As I wrote about earlier, I just don't get it; it's just not my predilection. What would you perceive as the *benefit* of not the decider being true? I like how I feel now as the Decider (not witnessing). I like that feeling of control and the sense that I am responsible for what I do and say. It seems right and good and certainly all of our cultures are based on this assumption. Makes me feel creative and I like to think about things, anyway, so the sequence of thoughts and ideas is rewarding to me. From where I am now, I kind of dislike the idea of not the decider frankly. But having experienced it many times, the feeling of freedom and lightness and ease while in that non deciding state was pretty wonderful. So I don't sit around looking at life and people and thinking they are not really responsible for what their brains come up with. I do hold people accountable, myself included. Very accountable. I blame people, get angry. But in the back of my mind, once in a while, I recognize that it may not be as it seems. I don't know how to combine the 2 points of view. But I do accept that maybe science is going to find this all out and it may be that we have less free will or none - despite what it feels like. Having had that nondeciding experience, I look to what I read about brain function with an eye out for an explanation. Maybe someone like Dr. Pete - who has been living with this for many years - can help us out on this.
[FairfieldLife] Sahaj Samadhi Meditation – guru mantra or guru scam?
http://aolfree.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/sahaj-samadhi-meditation-–- guru-mantra-or-guru-scam/ LINK Sahaj Samadhi Meditation – guru mantra or guru scam? JULY 24, 2010 by Skywalker by Curious George There have been heated discussions in this blog about how secret is actually the “secret knowledge” of RS, and, as the blog authors slowly share that which otherwise only the so-called “chosen ones” have access to, I am suddenly hit by one question. And though the saying goes, “Curiosity killed the cat”, I’d rather be Curious George than a mindless fanatic zombie. Many of us got “initiated” into Sahaj. Most teachers told us Sahaj+SK was the perfect combination. I sat in one of Bhanu’s courses where she elegantly said, “SK is like cleaning the mirror … Sahaj is seeing yourself in it.” There was no way such seductive words, paired up with the back-then-innocent look of that tiny woman would not convince even the most skeptical curious seeker. And for an extra fat sum, one took flowers, fruits, a white cloth and kneeled down in front of an altar while someone chanted a delightful melody and mysterious syllables. I never doubted the sanctity of the chant, though when I think about it now, God knows what they really were chanting! And for a religious person (that I was not), of course, that could have been easily seen as a religious ritual, even, induction! After the teacher bowed down to the picture while acting holy (98% mood making!) and the artifacts with a light blowing, a mantra was given to us. A sound we were told was sacred and secret, not to be shared out loud, written, or read about because it otherwise “would loose its power” (just like in story books!). Furthermore, we were told we each got a mantra, chosen by special means, given by the “guru” himself (God, were we special! Definitely “chosen” and saved!). Even Sri Sri would add that to ensure salvation one had to be initiated and have a personal guru mantra before death. Upgraded reincarnation guaranteed. And so, I was saved back then (or at least convinced I was). Then stories came about Bhanu initiating 400 people at a time in courses. They boasted so much about it while I could not help but think of the mass weddings celebrated in the Moon sect. How special could a mantra be if it was given in masses? (OK, she is the sister of the enlightened … and, to apply a knowledge point taught to us by the AoL – “so what!”). As the numbers increased in courses, couples were told to get one together (I guess to make initiations faster while cashing more money), since they share a same path, they of course share a same mantra. But then, how individualized are these mantras? And what happens if the couple divorces? Or have extra marital affairs? Or actually are secretly in love with someone else and only barely tolerating the legal spouse, or if the couple lives together but does not share a life together? Should they get new mantras then? Some TM initiated people would be told to keep their TM mantra. Some were told Sahaj mantras were better, or that after a certain use, it was good to renew one because it was good to get a new one, the old ones gets … “old” (do they mean personalized guru given mantras wear out too like an old pair of shoes?). What is interesting is though I experienced amazing “trips” (yes, like in drugs) the first month after initiation, as time went by, the experience changed. My head started throbbing. I felt a pressure in my skull and definitely it was more annoying rather than blissful or relaxing. And even when I could relax, I’d feel more numbed than alert and clumpsy or restless during the day. Of course I did not want to share these “bad trips” with my friends. I thought it had to do with my “lack of evolution” or “bad karma”. But, one day I dared pop the question to a few friends and was surprised to find out many had “bad trips” too after a while. Some reported feeling more irritable or even aggressive after meditating with Sahaj. Some that they felt “out” – not connected with life or themselves (numbed out). We asked our teachers separately and disappointed, we realized they had no clue about anything but were, sadly, just parrots who themselves only cared about feeling superior and the “chosen ones” for being able to “pass on” this “very secret high knowledge” that included a “guru mantra” and a green card to Sri Sri’s room for “special meetings.” Yes. AoL preaches about belongingness and sharing and unconditional love, but all I observed and experienced during my years as a participant was the hierarchy, the prejudice, the discrimination, the arrogance, the separatedness due to a sense of superiority and people creating and struggling to find ways to be in the room of the founder. Wasn’t it all about spiritual growth? How much was all of that necessary then or spiritual after all?
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. Out of TC-by-itself. In the TM context, if you are witnessING, you are said to be experiencing the Self (Being, the Witness) along with activity (including mental activity in meditation, known as witnessing one's meditation). Judy, to make a distinction here between being the witness, or the natural state of being an observer and witnessING (I first thought you were making a joke about your mantra by capitalizING), is like hair-splittING, especially if you are the non-doer. Not sure what your misunderstanding is here. The distinction I'm making is the same one Barry just made that you agreed with: the only difference between TC-by-itself (the Witness by itself) and witnessing is that in the former there are no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. The Witness (or the stillness as Barry put it) is the same in both cases. Why is that distinction hair-splitting when I make it but very well said when Barry makes it? Witness, as in the Witness, is a noun. WitnessING is the verb, referring to the experience of being the Witness along with activity. (And TC by itself = the Witness by itself.) If we can get this straight, we can go on to look at what Lawson said--which was entirely consistent with what Barry and I have just said--and why he made the comment he did. The confusion here, I'm pretty sure, isn't conceptual (or experiential, for that matter); it has to do with how we're using terminology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: MMY's original teaching described no thoughts/no mantra as the temporal period during which the recognition of the nature of the self could occur. That period of recognition constituted either the gradual or the immediate unfolding of direct realization i.e. the self realizing itself by itself alone. No thoughts/no mantra was only a description given as a way for a meditator to identify the period of meditation during which Self seeing Self could occur. The presence of stress which veiled that seeing accounted for the obscurity of not seeing during that direct realization while transcending. Later in the generalized and poorly defined TM teachings of the post-80's this point became erroneously redefine as transcending. It is still used that way here. His instructions were meant to be *teaching tools* only, for the most part, and not elaborate descriptions of transcending (which appears to be the way many understand them).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eyes Wide Open Mantra Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I agree. This has been an enjoyable discussion, although I participated mostly as an observer. It has given me a bit of a new perspective. On the other hand, I am not much given to such analysis anymore. Still, I found some of the distinctions made quite interesting. Bear in mind, please, that what blusc0ut said about Lawson and me ignoring anything that is said about chakras is not true, at least in my case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Bluscout this is concise and well said. It is my opinion and experience too. In Fairfield, pursuit of the wider spiritual cultivation is what has been much of the history of the last decade or so. Beyond transcending is what is missed with just TM. Some people look pretty bad in fact for lack of dealing with the fitness of the subtle bodies. This is a lot of what the saints have come around helping people with in their spiritual progress. Bit by bit people are getting it. More recently John Douglas has been extremely helpful to the inner TM circle on and around campus with this. His darshan and also the processes as techniques he teaches are chakra based and have been very effective in a secular way that is more generally acceptable around here. Thus far people are not being kicked out of the domes for having seen John Douglas or practicing his techniques. Also, thus far the people organizing for him are still in the domes. And yet the various satsangs all around town attend to this more complete growth in their programming. It's very spiritual place in practice that way around Fairfield in fact. On the ground. -Dug in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: Well it would mean some are reaching the bottom of the ocean (TC) in the bubble diagram, and others are only 'blanking out' at one of the subtle waves towards the bottom, in a laya (Non-TC). This is my opinion as well: Much of what is described in TM transcending is only laya. Think of the sleeping elephants. They are blockages you haven't dealt with. You are only partly awake. Some of these blockages are the so-called knots associated with different chakras, so called granthis. So actually only part of the system is 'awake', the other part sleeps. The crucial difference is, that this partial transcending, mental laya, is not the awakening of the Atma, the soul. Chakras, Soul, are not mentioned in the argumentation of Lawson and Judy. If you mention them, they ignore it as if you have never said anything. Ramana Maharshi says, that in awakening, there is a very fine nadi between Sahasrara and heart, which gets activated, the socalled atma-nadi. Shankara speaks of the same in his Brahma Sutra commentary. As long as the Atma is not awakened, your transcendence will only be laya. You could go on with laya forever, it doesn't lead to the Atma. Unless you don't realize the Atma, according to Vedanta, there will not be any realization. If you think that's OK that seems like a pretty bad rationalization to accept. It's effectively resigning yourself to a limbo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts. Unless the gap (sandhi) is clear, it doesn't matter how long you're in it! No bliss? NO Transcendental Consciousness! TC IS bliss, that's what the soul IS. (It's the ananda-maya-kosha in Yoga).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 10:01 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts. Unless the gap (sandhi) is clear, it doesn't matter how long you're in it! No bliss? NO Transcendental Consciousness! TC IS bliss, that's what the soul IS. (It's the ananda-maya-kosha in Yoga). There must be different types of bliss then. Bliss, for me, comes about in the movement of the mind in and out of samadhi. Pure consciousness is nothing. We're only talking about TC here, not CC. As the mind shuts down it approaches TC there is greater and greater bliss then pop! no activity, no thought, no mind at all. When the mind starts to be active again at some point, in this activity is overwhelming bliss. 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: Sahaj Samadhi Meditation guru mantra or guru scam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: http://aolfree.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/sahaj-samadhi-meditation-- guru-mantra-or-guru-scam/ LINK Sahaj Samadhi Meditation guru mantra or guru scam? JULY 24, 2010 by Skywalker by Curious George snip But perhaps, more disappointing than to find out Maharishi was just a clerk who NEVER taught meditation nor was given the knowledge to do so nor had the right to do so because of the cast he belonged to, and invented his mantras just to generate a fortune, of course, which in itself also means Ravi Shankar (at this point deserveless of the Sri Sri) most likely invented his own mantras (or borrowed them somewhere or grabbed a book like many people do nowadays to find one Sheesh. Somebody hand this dude a clue! Can't speak for SSRS, but MMY didn't invent his mantras, he used standard, traditional bija mantras, and never claimed otherwise--in fact, he made a big point that their effectiveness had been time-tested over millennia. (Just out of curiosity, what does this twit think is the alternative to either inventing mantras or using traditional mantras that can also be found in boosk? If he thinks both are somehow despicable, what does he believe is the right and virtuous way to do it? In any case, with TM, what you paid for wasn't the mantra but the method of using the mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Judy, to make a distinction here between being the witness, or the natural state of being an observer and witnessING (I first thought you were making a joke about your mantra by capitalizING), is like hair-splittING, especially if you are the non-doer. Not sure what your misunderstanding is here. Dear Judy sight, if you start your answer like this, its somewhat disingeneous. Either you are sure that I have a misunderstanding, then spell it out, and say, ITS YOUR OPINION. But if you aren't sure, then don't say its my misunderstanding if we disagree. The distinction I'm making is the same one Barry just made that you agreed with: the only difference between TC-by-itself (the Witness by itself) and witnessing is that in the former there are no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. The Witness (or the stillness as Barry put it) is the same in both cases. But you left off half of what Barry said, which was in fact the part with which I agreed most, as you could have seen from my answer, how convenient. For Barry and me the witness is also there in Transcendence per se to elucite the depth of it - something you keep denying. Besides that you ignore the point he really made, to which I was agreeing with, that there is really no difference in the witness of PC by itself and the witness of other subtle thought activities. You just go on with your usual PC-by-itself vs PC with activity distinction. So this is not my misunderstanding. Why is that distinction hair-splitting when I make it but very well said when Barry makes it? Because Barry explained that he doesn't see a distinction there maybe? For him it is one and the same. Witness, as in the Witness, is a noun. WitnessING is the verb, referring to the experience of being the Witness along with activity. (And TC by itself = the Witness by itself.) And that's a damn wrong conclusion. Witnessing is the self witnessing itself, not just the Self witnessing any activity. The witness is fundamnetal and its absurd to make a distinction between witness and witnessing, it's in fact the hallmark of transcendence that they are one. Now I had said that I am in the *position* of an observer - position. If we can get this straight, we can go on to look at what Lawson said-- Really - to be completely honest with you, and with all due appreciation for you - I am not really interested in the one or two sentences Lawson shoots out here. They don't seem to be very deep IMO For me the crux is right here, there is nothing to straighten out, no semantic quibbles. If you want to 'straighten' this out, and go on, you can do this with Lawson, leave me out of this. which was entirely consistent with what Barry and I have just said--and why he made the comment he did. The confusion here, I'm pretty sure, isn't conceptual (or experiential, for that matter); it has to do with how we're using terminology. It is both, conceptual AND experiential. Another point Barry actually made - even though, I understand, you may not have taken it that well. But no matter how he had it expressed, *basically* I agree with him there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: This state of Being we call the 'Witness'... Now tell that to Lawson, who thinks I am already out of transcendence if I witness. I've never understood TMers who seem to believe that what they call TC is different from what they call witnessing (CC). Same stillness, just in one case with no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. That is the only difference, and it's the one Lawson was referring to. If any TMer thinks otherwise, they've grossly misunderstood MMY's teaching.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. If you're referring to no thoughts/no mantra in TM meditation, this has always been the association, not just in current TM promotional materials. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over TM.org has, of course, been around for a *long* time, so I'm afraid it didn't just pop up. I suspect most if not all of the others Vaj is referring to have been in existence for some time as well. There have been scads of them for years; possibly Vaj has just recently become aware of them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
Samadhi once established is not exclusively a thought free experience. It can be, but not really necessary. It is an abiding peace under whatever circumstances, thoughts or no thoughts. That's the point; all aspects of life enlivened by samadhi. We can isolate Samadhi if we want to, call it TC, or PC, or hook up electrodes to the body and prove its existence momentarily in somebody's physiology. But we still don't know if that person lives a life of abiding peace. We don't know anything about their integrated life - what they think, feel, and act like on any given day or night. Isn't that It - instead of Samadhi, glistening and glowing from within, at mind's length in its shiny glass case? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Judy, to make a distinction here between being the witness, or the natural state of being an observer and witnessING (I first thought you were making a joke about your mantra by capitalizING), is like hair-splittING, especially if you are the non-doer. Not sure what your misunderstanding is here. Dear Judy sight, if you start your answer like this, its somewhat disingeneous. Either you are sure that I have a misunderstanding, then spell it out, and say, ITS YOUR OPINION. But if you aren't sure, then don't say its my misunderstanding if we disagree. You have surely misunderstood what I was saying. The distinction I'm making is the same one Barry just made that you agreed with: the only difference between TC-by-itself (the Witness by itself) and witnessing is that in the former there are no other perceptions going on, and in the other, with other perceptions going on. The Witness (or the stillness as Barry put it) is the same in both cases. But you left off half of what Barry said, which was in fact the part with which I agreed most, as you could have seen from my answer, how convenient. It didn't appear to me that you were favoring one part or the other with greater agreement. For Barry and me the witness is also there in Transcendence per se to elucite the depth of it - something you keep denying. Not only do I not deny that the Witness is there in Transcendence per se, I *insist* on it. That's the case by definition; that's what Transcendence per se *is*. I'm not sure what you mean by to elucite the depth of it--did you mean elucidate? If what you're saying is that there is a means of knowing the depth of an experience of Transcendence per se, I wouldn't deny that either. Besides that you ignore the point he really made, to which I was agreeing with, that there is really no difference in the witness of PC by itself and the witness of other subtle thought activities. That's exactly the point of Barry's that I agree with. What did you think I meant above by The Witness (or the 'stillness' as Barry put it) is the same in both cases? How can you say I'm ignoring it when I explicitly *affirmed* it? You just go on with your usual PC-by-itself vs PC with activity distinction. So this is not my misunderstanding. Yes, it's most certainly your misunderstanding of what I've been saying. The *only* difference between PC-by- itself vs. PC-with-activity is that in the latter, activity co-exists with PC. Why is that distinction hair-splitting when I make it but very well said when Barry makes it? Because Barry explained that he doesn't see a distinction there maybe? For him it is one and the same. One more time: The distinction that Barry explained, and that I affirm, is that with PC-by-itself, there is no perception, no mental activity; while with witnessing, PC co-exists with perception and activity (any kind, not just mental). The PC is the same in both cases; we are all (including Lawson) agreed on that point, even though you and Barry don't seem to want to acknowledge it. Witness, as in the Witness, is a noun. WitnessING is the verb, referring to the experience of being the Witness along with activity. (And TC by itself = the Witness by itself.) And that's a damn wrong conclusion. Witnessing is the self witnessing itself, not just the Self witnessing any activity. Right, the Self witnessing the Self. But it's just the Self on both sides, the Witness (the Self) and the witnessed (the Self). I believe that's what MMY called Self-reference. But usually, unless we indicate otherwise, when we refer to witnessing in TM, we mean the Self experienced along with activity. That's what Barry was talking about that he called CC (CC is 24/7 witnessing, Self experienced along with activity--and sleep and dreaming--but we also use the term witnessing to refer to temporary experiences of Self along with activity). The witness is fundamnetal and its absurd to make a distinction between witness and witnessing, it's in fact the hallmark of transcendence that they are one. Absolutely, the Witness is the same in both cases. But what I was referring to by witnessing is the Witness witnessing activity, which is what is usually meant in the TM context. The Witness witnessing itself is a special case of witnessing, Self-reference. Now I had said that I am in the *position* of an observer - position. OK. If we can get this straight, we can go on to look at what Lawson said-- Really - to be completely honest with you, and with all due appreciation for you - I am not really interested in the one or two sentences Lawson shoots out here. Hey, you brought up what he said in response to Robert, as if what Robert said contradicted what Lawson said. The only point I was making was that there was
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Possibilian
turquoiseb: Therefore I don't really strive to attain any of these merely different states of consciousness, I just allow them to happen if they happen and don't miss them if they don't... Why not just use your 'will power' to make these attainments happen, why wait for them? LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: snip --- On Mon, 3/7/11, wgm4u wgm4u@... wrote: Unless the gap (sandhi) is clear, it doesn't matter how long you're in it! No bliss? NO Transcendental Consciousness! TC IS bliss, that's what the soul IS. (It's the ananda-maya-kosha in Yoga). There must be different types of bliss then. Bliss, for me, comes about in the movement of the mind in and out of samadhi. Pure consciousness is nothing. We're only talking about TC here, not CC. As the mind shuts down approaches TC there is greater and greater bliss then pop! no activity, no thought, no mind at all. When the mind starts to be active again at some point, in this activity is overwhelming bliss. I've been trying to point this out to BillyG for years, but he isn't having any. I'd love to know how blusc0ut would comment on this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
Also in samadhi there's no I. Ha ha ha!!! --- On Mon, 3/7/11, whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:48 AM Samadhi once established is not exclusively a thought free experience. It can be, but not really necessary. It is an abiding peace under whatever circumstances, thoughts or no thoughts. That's the point; all aspects of life enlivened by samadhi. We can isolate Samadhi if we want to, call it TC, or PC, or hook up electrodes to the body and prove its existence momentarily in somebody's physiology. But we still don't know if that person lives a life of abiding peace. We don't know anything about their integrated life - what they think, feel, and act like on any given day or night. Isn't that It - instead of Samadhi, glistening and glowing from within, at mind's length in its shiny glass case? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts. 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: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Because the Self is NOT a state. Transcendence is a state. I don't believe I said the Self was a state. ??? No, you didn't say that, but you equated final transcendence with self-realization As you did in another post... and transcendence with 'No thought, no mantra'. No thought, no mantra though is only a state; Vaj, Empty and me, we have suggested, that no mantra, no thought could also be mental laya instead of real transcendence (which in Vedanta would be equivalent to the SELF) I wouldn't contest *could* be, but I'm dubious that this is the typical TMer's experience. Yet, the Self is not a state, it is here right now, and it can be recognized with mantra, and with thought, as it is independend from such a state. Right. And it will NOT be *automatically* realized, if there is no thought and no mantra. So the Self/Soul not being realized, and having no thought-mental quietude, is really mental laya only. However, emptybill said no thought/no mantra identified the period in meditation during which the Self could be realized. In another thread, you just identified being a 'possibilian', which among others means an uncertainty of the existence of a soul. You are aware that Soul and Atma are identical in Vedanta? That may be different in Buddhism. You may talk to our Buddhists about the various possibilities, i am sure they exist, but in Vedanta Self realization without the Self is simply not possible. Right, and so...? Being a possibilian, as I understand it, means one can entertain all kinds of possibilities (including the doctrines of Vedanta and Buddhism) without being certain of any of them. BTW, I'm known (and reviled by some here) for using the phrase my working hypothesis rather than my belief. As Rick noted, some things seem more possible, more likely, than others; I pick the ones that seem to me most likely as my working hypotheses. But I don't consider them beliefs, much less certainties. Did you think that if you reminded me that Vedanta asserts the existence of a soul, I'd exclaim, Oh, no, I didn't mean I was uncertain about *that*? If so, sorry to disappoint you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: There must be different types of bliss then. Bliss, for me, comes about in the movement of the mind in and out of samadhi. Everybody's inner Being *IS* pure happiness, MMY There are 3 degrees of Bliss; CC , GC and UC, as you well know. CC and GC is contact with Brahman which bestows bliss (love, the essence of the soul). UC is becoming Brahman itself, beyond description Pure consciousness is nothing. We're only talking about TC here, not CC. As the mind shuts down it approaches TC there is greater and greater bliss then pop! no activity, no thought, no mind at all. TC or the soul (jiva) is most certainly not nothing, it may be considered no-thing, but not nothing, per se. It IS the ananda maya kosha, or the bliss covering of the Atman in Yoga (one of the six systems of Indian Philosophy). When the mind starts to be active again at some point, in this activity is overwhelming bliss. When the mind starts to be active again the bliss is Less, not More. The bliss begins as you settle down and expands into *Pure Bliss*, it doesn't disappear. Bliss is the essence and substance of the soul, Ananda, though just the beginning. There are three levels of bliss See OM-TAT-SAT for reference, FWIW :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:26 AM, turquoiseb wrote: One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. My experience is that it's pretty much the opposite. The people I've run into on this planet whom I con- sider the most evolved, or whose brains were firing on the most cylinders all had one trait in common. They were very aware of their own patterns, the *trends* or *habits* or (in spiritual parlance) the *samskaras* that tend to repeat themselves in their actions. What I've noticed is that those who have invested heavily in the spontaneous right action or just act, assume that it's correct, and never look at whether I'm merely acting out of habit meme tend, over a period of years and decades, to actually *lose the ability to self-assess*. Or out of laziness. MMY's McMeditation pushes this idiotic meme because he knew perfectly well who he was dealing with: people who had about as much self-awareness as your average 3rd-grader (and that's no insult to 3-graders.) So instead of asking them to do the tough stuff (or some of it~~actually, any of it) he just let them off the hook entirely and said personal behavior didn't matter. Problem solved! You can be a real stinker and just go and do program and expect that your psychic laundry is once again freshly cleaned. And like magic whatever sh*tty things you might have done just disappear. Convenient, no? And that, IMO, is the real genius of MMY and others like him~~creating an org staffed by some of the most conscience-free people many of us have ever seen~~stealing, lying and breaking laws if they felt they could get away with it. And much of the time, they do. But of course every now and then the curtain gets pulled aside, either during the latest Ed Beckley/ Jeru Hall type scandal hits, or, far more seriously, when some tragedy occurs: either Levi Butler or the latest young person offing themselves. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Also in samadhi there's no I. Ha ha ha!!! Who's laughing? --- On Mon, 3/7/11, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: From: whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:48 AM Samadhi once established is not exclusively a thought free experience. It can be, but not really necessary. It is an abiding peace under whatever circumstances, thoughts or no thoughts. That's the point; all aspects of life enlivened by samadhi. We can isolate Samadhi if we want to, call it TC, or PC, or hook up electrodes to the body and prove its existence momentarily in somebody's physiology. But we still don't know if that person lives a life of abiding peace. We don't know anything about their integrated life - what they think, feel, and act like on any given day or night. Isn't that It - instead of Samadhi, glistening and glowing from within, at mind's length in its shiny glass case? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:52 AM, blusc0ut wrote: Now this is clearly the inward stroke of transcendence futiles and deceitful, and we proceed living abundantly and this is the outward stroke. In both cases the observer is there. So is the observer still present in the middle, in between inside and outside strokes? If so, could we call this a Consciousness Sandwich? And are they cheaper by the dozen? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:26 AM, turquoiseb wrote: snip What I've noticed is that those who have invested heavily in the spontaneous right action or just act, assume that it's correct, and never look at whether I'm merely acting out of habit meme tend, over a period of years and decades, to actually *lose the ability to self-assess*. Or out of laziness. MMY's McMeditation pushes this idiotic meme because he knew perfectly well who he was dealing with: people who had about as much self-awareness as your average 3rd-grader (and that's no insult to 3-graders.) So instead of asking them to do the tough stuff (or some of it~~actually, any of it) he just let them off the hook entirely and said personal behavior didn't matter. Either of you ever see MMY's behavioral rasayanas? Ever hear him say, Don't do what you think might be wrong? Apparently not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. The because part has to be wrong. By definition, one cannot do anything that isn't in accord with the laws of nature, since they govern everything. In that sense, all action is right action. Michael Dean Goodman once explained here that the key word was spontaneous, not right. If you assume authorship of action, it isn't spontaneous; so spontaneous (right) action is equivalent to I am not the Doer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I've been trying to point this out to BillyG for years, but he isn't having any. It should be noted that it is the 'contact' that is infinite joy, and not Brahman Itself. MMY/Gita TC is *contact* with Brahman (but only on the level of the jiva, Brahman's reflection IN creation). Hence it IS infinite joy (ananda). You don't transcend to Brahman, Judy, first you transcend to the realization of your Self or Jiva, the permanent experience of which MMY calls CC. Brahman comes much later, generally speaking, it is a gradual expansion of consciousness not a hopscotching process
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Film Mini-Review: The Adjustment Bureau
On 03/07/2011 12:58 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1steve.sundur@... wrote: So much for Barry's Dick expertise... I think he rated it a 3.5. In most circles that may not be enough to really be noticed, or appreciated by the general public. Please note that I was using Roger Ebert's star rating system, as in 3.5 stars out of 4. If I were writing a review for the IMDB, with their rating system, I would have given it a 9 out of 10. I leave it up to you to imagine which of these scales can be more accurately mapped to linear measurement, and inches. :-) It's not a great film, BTW, in the sense of American Beauty or Citizen Kane. It's just an entertaining and intelligent one. These days I tend to give such films slightly higher ratings than they deserve, because there are so few of them. Especially in the genre of science fiction. I gave a film I watched on Netflix last night a 3 where Netflix thought I would give it a 1.8. Yes the film looked like it was a first attempt by a film student at a feature film, the acting was stiff and it was shot somewhat like a documentary. It was a horror film and has a good creep factor. There are a lot of well paid directors who have a problem pulling off the latter in big studio feature films nowadays. It was also a somewhat original story for being a haunted building film. The film is Hampshire and probably not many FFL'ers cuppa tea and you have get beyond the stiff acting. When I look at New Arrivals on Netflix I click on See All and go to the last pages of listings. Netflix tends to list by popularity and you might find some real interesting one perusing the end of the list. Of course you're likely to find some stinkers too but at least you did have to pay for each individual rental. CNET has yet another article on how Netflix is flummoxing the Hollywood studios. Though it has little to do with Netflix I just don't buy DVD nor Blurays anymore. I three shelves of DVDs, many that I may not watch again. In comparison I have about one row of Bluray discs on one of those shelves. That said sometimes I guess that the amount of money I blew on special edition laserdiscs is about the same I blew on my collection of DVDs. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20039915-261.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Film Mini-Review: The Adjustment Bureau
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: CNET has yet another article on how Netflix is flummoxing the Hollywood studios. Though it has little to do with Netflix I just don't buy DVD nor Blurays anymore. I [have] three shelves of DVDs, many that I may not watch again. In comparison I have about one row of Bluray discs on one of those shelves. That said sometimes I guess that the amount of money I blew on special edition laserdiscs is about the same I blew on my collection of DVDs. I never invested in Blu-ray, but I still have about 500 DVDs. However, almost all of them were acquired while in Paris, which has to be the best city in the world for film freaks. My rule when buying them was that I would buy them used from collector shops, and never pay more than 5 Euros for a single-disk DVD. So the collection isn't nearly as expensive as it sounds. These days I don't bother. I don't think I've bought a new DVD in years, and periodically go into Amsterdam to the collector shops and sell off another batch of my existing ones. I don't know of any counterpart to Netflix here, so that's not an option for me, but I would welcome it if it appeared, just to watch more things in HD.
[FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls
http://tinyurl.com/pervananda SAN MARCOS, Texas, March 6 (UPI) -- A Hindu spiritual leader has been convicted of sexually abusing two girls who grew up at his Texas ashram. Prakashanand Saraswati, 82, known to his followers as Shree Swamiji, was convicted in Hays County Friday of 20 counts of indecency with a child, the Austin American-Statesman reported. The jury deliberated less than two hours. Shyama Rose and Vesla Tonnessen Kazimer, now 30 and 27, respectively, lived at the Barsana Dham ashram in Driftwood in the 1990s. They said the guru kissed and fondled them regularly over several years, starting when they were 12. Kate Tonnessen, now 31, also said Prakashanand molested her, but the statute of limitations expired in her case. The victims gave permission to be named. Jurors will consider the sentence Monday. Each count carries up to 20 years in prison. Kate and Vesla's brother and sister are still preachers at Barsana Dham, and their parents live there. The accusers have been cut off by their family. The few times they told adults about the incidents, the women said, they were told the touching had a spiritual purpose. I was told it was a test and if I failed it I would go to hell, Rose said.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Film Mini-Review: The Adjustment Bureau
On 03/07/2011 10:14 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: CNET has yet another article on how Netflix is flummoxing the Hollywood studios. Though it has little to do with Netflix I just don't buy DVD nor Blurays anymore. I [have] three shelves of DVDs, many that I may not watch again. In comparison I have about one row of Bluray discs on one of those shelves. That said sometimes I guess that the amount of money I blew on special edition laserdiscs is about the same I blew on my collection of DVDs. I never invested in Blu-ray, but I still have about 500 DVDs. However, almost all of them were acquired while in Paris, which has to be the best city in the world for film freaks. My rule when buying them was that I would buy them used from collector shops, and never pay more than 5 Euros for a single-disk DVD. So the collection isn't nearly as expensive as it sounds. These days I don't bother. I don't think I've bought a new DVD in years, and periodically go into Amsterdam to the collector shops and sell off another batch of my existing ones. I don't know of any counterpart to Netflix here, so that's not an option for me, but I would welcome it if it appeared, just to watch more things in HD. I assume you did collect A Scanner Darkly. I have it on Bluray and enjoyed the interviews with Philip K Dick's daughters and the bio on him. Winona Ryder's folks were also friends of Dick and I think there is a picture of him with her when she was a toddler in the extras. I suspect because of languages and licensing warlords a Netflix in Europe would be very difficult to do. Though I'm on home theater forums no one has mentioned any such thing for there. Canada did recently get Netflix streaming but not discs. I do have at least one rare DVD which is worth a bit. Funny it was only released once and in demand.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls http://tinyurl.com/pervananda SAN MARCOS, Texas, March 6 (UPI) -- A Hindu spiritual leader has been convicted of sexually abusing two girls who grew up at his Texas ashram. Prakashanand Saraswati, 82, known to his followers as Shree Swamiji, was convicted in Hays County Friday of 20 counts of indecency with a child, the Austin American-Statesman reported. The jury deliberated less than two hours. Shyama Rose and Vesla Tonnessen Kazimer, now 30 and 27, respectively, lived at the Barsana Dham ashram in Driftwood in the 1990s. They said the guru kissed and fondled them regularly over several years, starting when they were 12. Kate Tonnessen, now 31, also said Prakashanand molested her, but the statute of limitations expired in her case. The victims gave permission to be named. Jurors will consider the sentence Monday. Each count carries up to 20 years in prison. Kate and Vesla's brother and sister are still preachers at Barsana Dham, and their parents live there. The accusers have been cut off by their family. The few times they told adults about the incidents, the women said, they were told the touching had a spiritual purpose. I was told it was a test and if I failed it I would go to hell, Rose said. Didn't one of that guru's followers (Peter Speigel?) put up a huge sum which allowed the guru to return to India, from whence he couldn't be retrieved if convicted?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sahaj Samadhi Meditation – guru mantra or guru scam?
Ah, the blog of some of the most profoundly immature spiritual materialists I have ever seen. I have no problem with mature criticism, but these children piss and crap on everything and are open to absolutely no discussion. Everything SSRS does must be bad and evil in some way. Enantiodromia at its best. While in the AOL they suppressed their doubts and used no discrimination and now they have flipped to the opposite extreme and are doing the same thing from the opposite direction. Incredible. I think all of us on a spiritual path have go through this in some way, but to see the intensity of this with absolutely no discrimination at all is sad. They are going to be searching for a relatively perfect master for quite some time until they get it. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sahaj Samadhi Meditation – guru mantra or guru scam? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:34 AM http://aolfree.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/sahaj-samadhi-meditation-–-guru-mantra-or-guru-scam/ LINK Sahaj Samadhi Meditation – guru mantra or guru scam?JULY 24, 2010 by Skywalkerby Curious GeorgeThere have been heated discussions in this blog about how secret is actually the “secret knowledge” of RS, and, as the blog authors slowly share that which otherwise only the so-called “chosen ones” have access to, I am suddenly hit by one question. And though the saying goes, “Curiosity killed the cat”, I’d rather be Curious George than a mindless fanatic zombie.Many of us got “initiated” into Sahaj. Most teachers told us Sahaj+SK was the perfect combination. I sat in one of Bhanu’s courses where she elegantly said, “SK is like cleaning the mirror … Sahaj is seeing yourself in it.” There was no way such seductive words, paired up with the back-then-innocent look of that tiny woman would not convince even the most skeptical curious seeker. And for an extra fat sum, one took flowers, fruits, a white cloth and kneeled down in front of an altar while someone chanted a delightful melody and mysterious syllables. I never doubted the sanctity of the chant, though when I think about it now, God knows what they really were chanting! And for a religious person (that I was not), of course, that could have been easily seen as a religious ritual, even, induction! After the teacher bowed down to the picture while acting holy (98% mood making!) and the artifacts with a light blowing, a mantra was given to us. A sound we were told was sacred and secret, not to be shared out loud, written, or read about because it otherwise “would loose its power” (just like in story books!). Furthermore, we were told we each got a mantra, chosen by special means, given by the “guru” himself (God, were we special! Definitely “chosen” and saved!). Even Sri Sri would add that to ensure salvation one had to be initiated and have a personal guru mantra before death. Upgraded reincarnation guaranteed. And so, I was saved back then (or at least convinced I was).Then stories came about Bhanu initiating 400 people at a time in courses. They boasted so much about it while I could not help but think of the mass weddings celebrated in the Moon sect. How special could a mantra be if it was given in masses? (OK, she is the sister of the enlightened … and, to apply a knowledge point taught to us by the AoL – “so what!”). As the numbers increased in courses, couples were told to get one together (I guess to make initiations faster while cashing more money), since they share a same path, they of course share a same mantra. But then, how individualized are these mantras? And what happens if the couple divorces? Or have extra marital affairs? Or actually are secretly in love with someone else and only barely tolerating the legal spouse, or if the couple lives together but does not share a life together? Should they get new mantras then?Some TM initiated people would be told to keep their TM mantra. Some were told Sahaj mantras were better, or that after a certain use, it was good to renew one because it was good to get a new one, the old ones gets … “old” (do they mean personalized guru given mantras wear out too like an old pair of shoes?).What is interesting is though I experienced amazing “trips” (yes, like in drugs) the first month after initiation, as time went by, the experience changed. My head started throbbing. I felt a pressure in my skull and definitely it was more annoying rather than blissful or relaxing. And even when I could relax, I’d feel more numbed than alert and clumpsy or restless during the day. Of course I did not want to share these “bad trips” with my friends. I thought it had to do with my “lack of evolution” or “bad karma”. But, one day I dared pop the question to a few friends and was surprised to find out many had “bad trips” too after a while. Some reported feeling
[FairfieldLife] David Koch's Poodle
Though I made a video over a week ago with the Koch brothers as circus people with their pet monkey Scotty, Thom Hartmann started calling Wisconsin governor Scott Walker the Koch Brother's pet poodle. This inspired some folks to create their own pictures of David Koch and a poodle with Walker's face on it. It took it a step further and created this little horror video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dyzAERiDuM
RE: [FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com wrote: From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 2:26 PM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Texas guru convicted of molesting girls http://tinyurl.com/pervananda SAN MARCOS, Texas, March 6 (UPI) -- A Hindu spiritual leader has been convicted of sexually abusing two girls who grew up at his Texas ashram. Prakashanand Saraswati, 82, known to his followers as Shree Swamiji, was convicted in Hays County Friday of 20 counts of indecency with a child, the Austin American-Statesman reported. The jury deliberated less than two hours. Shyama Rose and Vesla Tonnessen Kazimer, now 30 and 27, respectively, lived at the Barsana Dham ashram in Driftwood in the 1990s. They said the guru kissed and fondled them regularly over several years, starting when they were 12. Kate Tonnessen, now 31, also said Prakashanand molested her, but the statute of limitations expired in her case. The victims gave permission to be named. Jurors will consider the sentence Monday. Each count carries up to 20 years in prison. Kate and Vesla's brother and sister are still preachers at Barsana Dham, and their parents live there. The accusers have been cut off by their family. The few times they told adults about the incidents, the women said, they were told the touching had a spiritual purpose. I was told it was a test and if I failed it I would go to hell, Rose said. Didn’t one of that guru’s followers (Peter Speigel?) put up a huge sum which allowed the guru to return to India, from whence he couldn’t be retrieved if convicted? Yes, I remember that too. But he must be back in Texas for the trial. A lot of Fairfield people went off with this guy in the late 80's after he came through town. Chris Gentsch and his wife were living down in Austin and involved with him. He claimed to be Guru Dev's cook. Who knows.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com wrote: From: Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 12:31 PM On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:52 AM, blusc0ut wrote: Now this is clearly the inward stroke of transcendence futiles and deceitful, and we proceed living abundantly and this is the outward stroke. In both cases the observer is there. So is the observer still present in the middle, in between inside and outside strokes? If so, could we call this a Consciousness Sandwich? And are they cheaper by the dozen? Sal And are they legal in south Dakota? 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: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: There must be different types of bliss then. Bliss, for me, comes about in the movement of the mind in and out of samadhi. Pure consciousness is nothing. We're only talking about TC here, not CC. As the mind shuts down it approaches TC there is greater and greater bliss then pop! no activity, no thought, no mind at all. When the mind starts to be active again at some point, in this activity is overwhelming bliss. Peter-My understanding is that we don't transcend directly to Brahman (PC), (that comes much later). It would be more appropriate and correct to think that the first thing we experience when we transcend is our own soul, (which IS bliss). MMY's bubble diagram is a teaching tool only, it was never meant to be a conclusive delineation/description of the higher states beyond the mind. We don't actually transcend anyway as you well know, our consciousness *expands* and experiences it full potential, sequentially, from Self Realization to God Realization and finally Brahman. We don't skip the realization of our own soul to experience Brahman and then come back, etc. The cloth analogy wasn't meant to describe the higher states of conscious either, it's only a teaching tool, FWIW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HHkXoH97r0
[FairfieldLife] Re: David Koch's Poodle
Bhairitu: Though I made a video over a week ago with the Koch brothers as circus people with their pet monkey Come on, admit it - you know next to nothing about the Koch brothers.
[FairfieldLife] The Strange Powers of the Placebo Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfRVCaA5o18 Our minds create the medicine - and THAT is pretty freakin' weird (Sounds like Dr. Robert Chase narrating)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
Are you speaking out of experience or concepts? I have a feeling you are talking out of concepts. Bliss is an experience, it is not the soul. What is the soul? There is no soul in pure consciousness. You can't even say, you are pure consciousness. Let's hear what your experiences are in this regard, not your concepts. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 3:11 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: There must be different types of bliss then. Bliss, for me, comes about in the movement of the mind in and out of samadhi. Pure consciousness is nothing. We're only talking about TC here, not CC. As the mind shuts down it approaches TC there is greater and greater bliss then pop! no activity, no thought, no mind at all. When the mind starts to be active again at some point, in this activity is overwhelming bliss. Peter-My understanding is that we don't transcend directly to Brahman (PC), (that comes much later). It would be more appropriate and correct to think that the first thing we experience when we transcend is our own soul, (which IS bliss). MMY's bubble diagram is a teaching tool only, it was never meant to be a conclusive delineation/description of the higher states beyond the mind. We don't actually transcend anyway as you well know, our consciousness *expands* and experiences it full potential, sequentially, from Self Realization to God Realization and finally Brahman. We don't skip the realization of our own soul to experience Brahman and then come back, etc. The cloth analogy wasn't meant to describe the higher states of conscious either, it's only a teaching tool, FWIW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HHkXoH97r0 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] Jen Anniston's Sex Tape
Really. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/jennifer-aniston-sex-tape-smart-water-_n_832269.html And really funny.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Bliss is an experience, it is not the soul. What is the soul? There is no soul in pure consciousness. You can't even say, you are pure consciousness. Let's hear what your experiences are in this regard, not your concepts. See, that's what I have been trying to say all the time with so many words: Many people 'transcend' without reaching the soul. This realization of the soul is missing. The soul is the Self is the Atman. And I can certainly assure you that the soul exists and can be awakened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
blusc0ut: The soul is the Self is the Atman. And I can certainly assure you that the soul exists and can be awakened... Maybe that should be 'Soul', not the soul-monad. The Soul is the Transcendental Person; the soul is the jiva.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: blusc0ut: The soul is the Self is the Atman. And I can certainly assure you that the soul exists and can be awakened... Maybe that should be 'Soul', not the soul-monad. The Soul is the Transcendental Person; the soul is the jiva. The Soul is the Atman, the Transcendental Person is the Paramatman. But even the individualized soul has to be realized. Thats why it is called jivan-mukthi. The seat of the soul is in the heart, the seat of Paramatman is in the Sahasrar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:52 AM, blusc0ut wrote: Now this is clearly the inward stroke of transcendence futiles and deceitful, and we proceed living abundantly and this is the outward stroke. In both cases the observer is there. So is the observer still present in the middle, in between inside and outside strokes? If so, could we call this a Consciousness Sandwich? Yes,that's what they call it. The 'Transcendo Burger'. There is also the Flatuscendo Burger. And are they cheaper by the dozen? Sure, you get the discount. Also, if in need get a half one, or just the two halfs without the beef. Some get the beef without the halfs, no inside /outside stroke. But some like the packaging more. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Are you speaking out of experience or concepts? I have a feeling you are talking out of concepts. Bliss is an experience, it is not the soul. Bliss is an experience OF the soul, the Spirit or Brahman is beyond Creation/UnManifest. That dichotomy is experienced much later. Brahman in manifestation, IS Love, first as OUR soul, then as the Universal Soul or the oversoul or MMY's GC (aka Christ, Krishna Consciousness, etc.). What is the soul? There is no soul in pure consciousness. You can't even say, you are pure consciousness. Let's hear what your experiences are in this regard, not your concepts. There is no soul in Pure Consciousness because it has become Brahman, initially you transcend to and experience the *ananda-maya-kosha that is the bliss covering.see Om-tat-sat.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: blusc0ut: The soul is the Self is the Atman. And I can certainly assure you that the soul exists and can be awakened... Maybe that should be 'Soul', not the soul-monad. The Soul is the Transcendental Person; the soul is the jiva. The Soul is the Atman, the Transcendental Person is the Paramatman. But even the individualized soul has to be realized. Thats why it is called jivan-mukthi. The seat of the soul is in the heart, the seat of Paramatman is in the Sahasrar. I think you're pretty much right on, bluscOut, though it's called the jivatman because it is a composite of the jiva AND the Atman together which constitute Brahman. (The soul could also be called the soul/monad). You can always transcend (a little), but when you transcend, that is, raise the serpent fire to the 6th chakra, you experience the bliss of the jiva or savikalpa samadhi turning into Self Realization or MMY's CC. Further progess to the sahasrar bestows UC. Quote from MMY: Jiva then, is *individualized* cosmic existence; it is the individual spirit within the body. With its limitations removed, jiva is Atman, transcendent Being, (that is transcendent to the 3 worlds of the physical, astral and causal). When the individuality of the jiva and the universality of the transcendent Self, the Atman, are united and found together on one level of life, then there is Brahman, the all-embracing cosmic life. Gita CHIIvs18
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Live With Christ
On Mar 7, 2011, at 4:05 PM, blusc0ut wrote: f so, could we call this a Consciousness Sandwich? Yes,that's what they call it. The 'Transcendo Burger'. Yep, you get a bag filled with nothing~~ and they charge you twice as much! There is also the Flatuscendo Burger. And are they cheaper by the dozen? Sure, you get the discount. Also, if in need get a half one, or just the two halfs without the beef. Some get the beef without the halfs, no inside /outside stroke. But some like the packaging more. And some like it hot. Do the two halves make a hole? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Radha Ma RIP
This is awful. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, blusc0ut no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: blusc0ut no_re...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Radha Ma RIP To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 4:26 PM A friend who is usually in the know of all things Thiru, just emailed me that Radha Ma http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/radha-ma commited self-immolation http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/radha-ma-attempts-self-immolation-in-tiruvannamalai/ on Saturday, and died on Sunday in a hospital. I haven't seen Radha Ma in Tiruvannamalai, I almost did, but we had conversations on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/radha.ma I am like a bird I only fly away I don't know where my home is I don't know where my soul is Baby, don't waste time to meet me I am like a bird... -- Radha Ma, Sep 2009 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: Radha Ma RIP
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: A friend who is usually in the know of all things Thiru, just emailed me that Radha Ma http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/radha-ma commited self-immolation http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/radha-ma-attempts-self-immolation-in-tiruvannamalai/ on Saturday, and died on Sunday in a hospital. I haven't seen Radha Ma in Tiruvannamalai, I almost did, but we had conversations on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/radha.ma I am like a bird I only fly away I don't know where my home is I don't know where my soul is Baby, don't waste time to meet me I am like a bird... -- Radha Ma, Sep 2009 http://chi-ting.blogspot.com/2011/03/suicide-in-bunker.html You may not know her, she hasn't been the big guru, but she was well known in the indian scene in Tiru. You may have seen this interview, were she is quite charming: http://conscious-websites.com/blueprints/good/popup/radhama/radhama1.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sahaj Samadhi Meditation guru mantra or guru scam?
Oh yeah? Well for your information, Vaj only posted this to distract people so they would start looking for something meaningful in that which is meaningless. All because you let out the most secret mantra of the great, all-embracing tradition (the one passed only orally) which, until now, has never, ever been written in any form I ha ha ha. And you did it without asking for the proper acknowledgements and above all without asking for payment! Anathema be thy name, demon! *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Ah, the blog of some of the most profoundly immature spiritual materialists I have ever seen. I have no problem with mature criticism, but these children piss and crap on everything and are open to absolutely no discussion. Everything SSRS does must be bad and evil in some way. Enantiodromia at its best. While in the AOL they suppressed their doubts and used no discrimination and now they have flipped to the opposite extreme and are doing the same thing from the opposite direction. Incredible. I think all of us on a spiritual path have go through this in some way, but to see the intensity of this with absolutely no discrimination at all is sad. They are going to be searching for a relatively perfect master for quite some time until they get it.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 05 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 12 00:00:00 2011 241 messages as of (UTC) Mon Mar 07 23:13:43 2011 46 authfriend jst...@panix.com 20 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 20 blusc0ut no_re...@yahoogroups.com 15 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 15 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com 11 Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net 10 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 8 whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com 8 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 8 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 8 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 7 wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com 7 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 6 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 5 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 5 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 5 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 5 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 4 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 Yifu Xero yifux...@yahoo.com 2 wayback71 waybac...@yahoo.com 2 shanti2218411 kc...@epix.net 2 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 2 John jr_...@yahoo.com 2 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 1 dharmacentral no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 aw4renes2 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 wle...@aol.com 1 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 1 Robert babajii...@yahoo.com 1 Paulo Barbosa tprob...@terra.com.br 1 PaliGap compost...@yahoo.co.uk 1 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com Posters: 35 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: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
imo the word spontaneous could also lead to a typical Neo-A tautology, or a corner with inherent conflicts. Starters, given the word spontaneous, are we saying E'd people are incapable of making unspontaneous acts? (doesn't make sense; not logical, no evidence; and Occams's razor imo points to an across-the-board treatment of all people, animals, whatever). Here's what Dr. Greg Goode has to say on non-doership: The neo story about Enlightened Entities - it's making existence/non-existence claims about doership. BUT, If there is not doership, then why do they say Unenlightened folks have it? How can they have it if it doesn't exist? And if there is doership, then why don't Enlightened folks have it? If it really exists, then can it disappear? And what's left? If it's a microwave oven or an electic blender with consciousness flowing through it -- well, that's still a lot of stuff hanging around the neo's ontology - it's not very nondual! :-) So why isn't the existence of (non)doership the same across the board? Why are E-people like rocks and Non-E people different? Is there an E-chromosome that melts when one goes to certain satsangs? What's up wid dat story?? These are just more examples about how both claims of existence and claims of non-existence don't make sense. The related political or ethical issues are interesting to observe. It's sure convenient for a person to be elevated into the ranks of the true non-doer, so that no normative strictures apply. Yay! Ethical holiday! But for poor everyday non-E seeker-schlubs, well, they still have to watch their P's and Q's! That's just elitist, Right Wing politics all around! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. The because part has to be wrong. By definition, one cannot do anything that isn't in accord with the laws of nature, since they govern everything. In that sense, all action is right action. Michael Dean Goodman once explained here that the key word was spontaneous, not right. If you assume authorship of action, it isn't spontaneous; so spontaneous (right) action is equivalent to I am not the Doer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: imo the word spontaneous could also lead to a typical Neo-A tautology, or a corner with inherent conflicts. Don't throw the Advaita baby out with the Neo-Advaita bathwater... Starters, given the word spontaneous, are we saying E'd people are incapable of making unspontaneous acts? Yes, in the sense that they don't experience themselves as the Doer. (doesn't make sense; not logical, no evidence; and Occams's razor imo points to an across-the-board treatment of all people, animals, whatever). There's no evidence or relative logic to any of this. And Occam's razor works only in an adequate frame of reference, so it's probably not the best tool to use here, because what you're dealing with is different experiential realities in different states of consciousness. snip The related political or ethical issues are interesting to observe. It's sure convenient for a person to be elevated into the ranks of the true non-doer, so that no normative strictures apply. Yay! Ethical holiday! But for poor everyday non-E seeker-schlubs, well, they still have to watch their P's and Q's! That may be the Neo-Advaita take, but I'm not sure it applies in original Advaita. Nondoership is purely subjective, purely experiential. I don't experience your nondoership, so why should I give you an ethical pass on anything? That's just elitist, Right Wing politics all around! Note that I said below, All action is right action, from Nature's perspective. But obviously humans make rules and laws about what's right and wrong, which may or may not conform to those of Nature. As long as you're living in the world with other humans, you're required to live by human laws or take the consequences that your fellow humans choose to impose on lawbreakers. That you identify with the Self rather than your self doesn't excuse your self for actions other humans consider wrong. But don't worry, because it's only your self that will be punished. As to the Self, the nondoer, Weapons cannot cleave him, nor fire burn him; water cannot wet him, nor wind dry him away (Gita II;23). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. The because part has to be wrong. By definition, one cannot do anything that isn't in accord with the laws of nature, since they govern everything. In that sense, all action is right action. Michael Dean Goodman once explained here that the key word was spontaneous, not right. If you assume authorship of action, it isn't spontaneous; so spontaneous (right) action is equivalent to I am not the Doer.
[FairfieldLife] NoThoughts,No Mantra,No Bliss, equals Samadhi? Really?
Experience shows that Being is bliss-consciousness, the source of all thinking, of all existing creation. MMY/SOBAL pg28 The essential nature of Being IS absolute bliss-consciousness *footnote Sat-Chit-Ananda It *IS* SAT, that which never changes; It *IS* Chit, that which is consciousness; it *IS* Ananda, that which is bliss MMY/footnote page 28 HB (Caps ** added by poster) The Upanishads explain the Being in terms of Ananda, or bliss,... MMY/page 36. Why such a simple concept could be so misunderstood is just a shame, but it really all goes back to MMY and his rather unconventional way of teaching Yoga. People actually think that witnessing itself, is CC, GMAB (it's just a symptom of growing awareness in activity).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
Still, the word spontaneous applies to something relative. One can argue (some people have)..; that many animals act spontaneously, and with development of the higher thinking (gone awry); humans and the higher primates (as well as animals influenced by humans such as cats, dogs, etc...); have lost their spontaneity. ... Thus, actions spontaneous or otherwise point to a mode of thinking in conjunction with actions. But E. says nothing about changes in modes of thinking, just the false identification with it. ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: imo the word spontaneous could also lead to a typical Neo-A tautology, or a corner with inherent conflicts. Don't throw the Advaita baby out with the Neo-Advaita bathwater... Starters, given the word spontaneous, are we saying E'd people are incapable of making unspontaneous acts? Yes, in the sense that they don't experience themselves as the Doer. (doesn't make sense; not logical, no evidence; and Occams's razor imo points to an across-the-board treatment of all people, animals, whatever). There's no evidence or relative logic to any of this. And Occam's razor works only in an adequate frame of reference, so it's probably not the best tool to use here, because what you're dealing with is different experiential realities in different states of consciousness. snip The related political or ethical issues are interesting to observe. It's sure convenient for a person to be elevated into the ranks of the true non-doer, so that no normative strictures apply. Yay! Ethical holiday! But for poor everyday non-E seeker-schlubs, well, they still have to watch their P's and Q's! That may be the Neo-Advaita take, but I'm not sure it applies in original Advaita. Nondoership is purely subjective, purely experiential. I don't experience your nondoership, so why should I give you an ethical pass on anything? That's just elitist, Right Wing politics all around! Note that I said below, All action is right action, from Nature's perspective. But obviously humans make rules and laws about what's right and wrong, which may or may not conform to those of Nature. As long as you're living in the world with other humans, you're required to live by human laws or take the consequences that your fellow humans choose to impose on lawbreakers. That you identify with the Self rather than your self doesn't excuse your self for actions other humans consider wrong. But don't worry, because it's only your self that will be punished. As to the Self, the nondoer, Weapons cannot cleave him, nor fire burn him; water cannot wet him, nor wind dry him away (Gita II;23). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: One of the things I've been thinking about lately is the spontaneous right action meme promoted by Maharishi and by many other spiritual teachers and groups. The idea that one evolves to the point that one no longer ever needs to assess one's own actions, because they're becoming increasingly right or in accord with the laws of nature seems to me -- on reflection -- just plain wrong. The because part has to be wrong. By definition, one cannot do anything that isn't in accord with the laws of nature, since they govern everything. In that sense, all action is right action. Michael Dean Goodman once explained here that the key word was spontaneous, not right. If you assume authorship of action, it isn't spontaneous; so spontaneous (right) action is equivalent to I am not the Doer.
[FairfieldLife] Some persons influenced by Ramana and HWL Poonja
http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/ramana_parampara.htm
[FairfieldLife] inappropriate actions among the E.
In this article in Nonduality magazine (Cf. 271284); Dennis Waite says that is unreliable for un-E people to make pronouncements on the appropriateness of E people's actions; such as Nisargadatta Maharaj smoking and selling bidis. ... The problem here is that Dennis seems to be rendering a pronouncement himself, equally as unreliable. He's in the UK but if he's reading this, I dare say that Nisargadatta's actions were inappropriate. Otherwise, again people are making claims to appropriateness among the Enlightened as if true; but I don't accept that as a premise. It's not self evident and fits into the realm of conjecture. ... Again, I'd say across the board pronouncements for all classes of people, as to appropriateness. Where would this end, with molestation of little boys and girls? Question put to Dennis: NDM: Yes at an absolute level they are free, but what about on this empirical level. What if someone has self-knowledge, know that they are Brahman, yet still have an uncontrollable predilection for chasing after beautiful women or men, gambling, drinking and drugs? What kind of mokSha is that; being a slave to these unwholesome desires? How is that going to stop them from being reincarnated as a jackrabbit in the next life? Dennis Waite: One who is enlightened still has a body-mind and vAsanA-s but also knows that `he' does not act; and any action will not affect his Self-knowledge. Action is only at the level of the body and it is the mind that enjoys the result, albeit that both take place only by virtue of Consciousness. As an analogy, the petrol provides the motive power for the tank or the ambulance but is not affected by the motives of either. As explained elsewhere, the extent to which one gains the `fruits of enlightenment' (jIvanmukti) is determined by how mentally prepared one was prior to enlightenment'. One who was just sufficiently prepared to be able to `take on board' the Self-knowledge, will still retain the maximum (commensurate with enlightenment) of negative mental attributes. In order to be able to interact in the world at all, there has to be an ego and some degree of `identification'. The jIvanmukta has very little and consequently has virtually no desires/fears etc. The person who only just made it will still have a lot and it is this person who may be perceived to act in ways that we would deem to be inappropriate. Another way of looking at it is that the j~nAnI (enlightened person) still has to use up the prArabdha karma that brought this body into manifestation in the first place. Thus he will (have to) experience certain desires and attachments and so on. When the prArabdha has been burnt up, the body falls and there is no rebirth for that `person'. It is understandable that there should be strong feelings on this issue and these have no doubt been exacerbated by the behavior of some who had been acclaimed as enlightened but who presumably were not. But it is also unreliable for the unenlightened to make pronouncements on the basis of what they may perceive as inappropriate actions. An obvious example would be Nisargadatta's apparent addiction to bidis, obviously knowing that they were bad for the health of his body. Yet most Western seekers today seem to accept that he was enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] A Darker Side to EnlightenNext
http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.1.williamyenner.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some persons influenced by Ramana and HWL Poonja
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/ramana_parampara.htm Ramana Maharshi never authorized anyone to teach in his name. This is therefore not a formal lineage.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Some persons influenced by Ramana and HWL Poonja
true, as pointed out by Dennis Waite; but I didn't have time to post his statement (so the chart remains as persons influenced by Ramana, subject to revision) . Here's an interesting article on Brigitte Arora's Kundalini Awakening http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.1.brigitte.kundalini.htm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/ramana_parampara.htm Ramana Maharshi never authorized anyone to teach in his name. This is therefore not a formal lineage.
[FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment Personal?
Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, especially the last 2 sentences including The dream character continues being a dream character. If what Dennis says is a. the truth, essentialy; with no self-contradictions, b. then one could (imo) insert the word individuality here and there, placing it into Waite's context such that the statement: there's no individuality in E. wouldn't quite match what Dennis is saying. Individuality as a dream entity would simply continue after E. along the lines of chopping wood and carrying water. A further question would be how much importance people give to their/any dream characters. Ramana said you give too much importance to the body (easy for him to say). ... at: http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/Q_A_Details.aspx?cid=68qid=111
[FairfieldLife] Re: Radha Ma RIP
Does anyone know why she would do such a thing? I had never heard of her, but I just looked at her Facebook page. Self-immolation -- wtf? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: A friend who is usually in the know of all things Thiru, just emailed me that Radha Ma http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/radha-ma commited self-immolation http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/radha-ma-attempts-self-immolation-in-tiruvannamalai/ on Saturday, and died on Sunday in a hospital. I haven't seen Radha Ma in Tiruvannamalai, I almost did, but we had conversations on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/radha.ma I am like a bird I only fly away I don't know where my home is I don't know where my soul is Baby, don't waste time to meet me I am like a bird... -- Radha Ma, Sep 2009 http://chi-ting.blogspot.com/2011/03/suicide-in-bunker.html You may not know her, she hasn't been the big guru, but she was well known in the indian scene in Tiru. You may have seen this interview, were she is quite charming: http://conscious-websites.com/blueprints/good/popup/radhama/radhama1.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-Perception As A Measure of Self-Awareness
This is yet another post Barry has made over and over and *over* again. He seems completely unaware that it isn't some brand-new insight he's just come up with but one he's repeated countless times. And it's no more accurate this time than it was when he first posted it. Every instance has been not a matter of analyzing the idea of spontaneous right action, but rather using his vague, comic- book notion of what that means to put down people he doesn't like. In his mind, that end justifies making stuff up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip I see a lot of spontaneous right action meme believers on this forum doing exactly the same thing. Many others have commented that they don't seem aware that their trends or habits are predict- able, a broken record. Some are *such* a broken record that many others have given up reading what they post, knowing that there will never be a change in those trends, habits, and samskaras. Here's an example: In fact, there aren't a lot of believers in spontaneous right action on FFL; and there are not many others who've made the comments Barry describes; nor are there many others who don't read the posts of the folks he's demonizing. They will repeat themselves every week, every month, and every year for the rest of these people's lives. Why bother with such repetition? And here's the Big Projection: Barry does not seem to realize that the above describes him as much as, or more than, anyone else here. snip I'm not convinced that this is a Good Thing, spir- itually or otherwise. Translation: Barry is quite sure that it's a Bad Thing. Just spit it out, Barry. Castaneda and others made some good points about analyzing our habits, and the spiritual value of going out of our way to *break* those habits from time to time. I have followed this advice, and have found it useful. The value of doing the same old same old over and over and over...uh...not so much. So why do you keep doing it? And you don't even believe in spontaneous right action! (PSSST, a clue for you: Belief in spontaneous right action has no implications for the need or inclination to engage in self-assessment. It's apples and dill pickles.) The end point of buying completely into this meme seems to me to be a decided lack of aware- ness that one *has* trends, habits, and samskaras, and thus an unwillingness to ever part with them. This is essentially word salad, meaningless. It's made up of bits and pieces from Barry's phrase bank, thrown together without any concern for whether they add up to a coherent thought. This happens a lot in Barry's posts. Some who have invested heavily in this meme have done so to such an extent that they actually get *angry* when someone points out these trends, so obvious to everyone else. They call the pointer- outers Liars! because *they honestly can't seen the trends themselves*. No, Barry, you get called a liar when you lie, when you misrepresent facts for the purpose of demonizing people you don't like. As to doing the same old same old over and over, I predict that when I post out (probably tomorrow), both Barry and Sal will make a big deal of it. Barry (or Sal) will note that he predicted I would. He'll then suggest made-up, inflated figures tallying how many of my posts were purportedly putdowns or corrections and will claim that I have nothing else to say. He will almost certainly insinuate that I'll be gnashing my teeth until I can post again. (Say, Barry, if you're into breaking habits as you claim, why don't *you* post out now and then, just for a change? I mean, it wouldn't bother you not to be able to post for a few days, would it?) Anyway, I can predict all this because Barry's done all of it so many times before (often to the accompaniment of Sal shrieking, Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!). If he sneaks a peek at this post, or sees it quoted, or a pal warns him in email, he may refrain in order to prove me wrong, but otherwise it's a sure bet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Possibilian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Ad that is EXACTLY what my position was in the earlier discussion on the brain and auotpilot sense when witnessing and howfor most of us it feels as if we are deciders altho it is possible we are not, really. Two questions. First, isn't it just as possible that it's the autopilot sense that is the illusion as it is that being the decider is the illusion? Yes, and I wonder about it. Because if the autopilot witnessing sense is an illusion, then meditation, religion, ritual, chanting, yoga and all sorts of other practices that seem to cultivate this experience, are suspect. Just to clarify, I don't believe that either decider or not the decider are illusions. Merely different subjective experiences, different states of attention. To believe that one was an illusion and the other not, or that one is better or worse than the other, one has to believe in some kind of hierarchical ordering of these different subjective experiences or states of attention. I don't. I think they're all at exactly the same level, and merely different. No better, no best, just different. Kind of like the idea that matter is solid for us and yet we are told it is mostly space by scientists who can see into the finer levels of it all. Neither the space nor the solidity is an illusion or better than the other, just different perceptions depending on where you sit. Somehow both coexist. But it seems to me that since most people who experience this feel good about it, and function well, then it is a good thing. Just to make a point, most people who snort cocaine feel good about that, too. :-) The fact that one of these different states of attention *feels good* at the time doth not necessarily make it a Good Thing. Ok. I heareth you. But still, it sure did seem good. But if it ends up being some sort of manipulation of the brain in a nonhealthy way, then this is not good. If I had to bet on it all, I would say it is a really good thing and a better style of brain functioning to have the witnessing, no matter what language you use to describe it. I had a very strong experience of this when I was 18 and had not yet learned to meditate and had no preconceived ideas about any of this. I loved it. And functioned very well indeed. Cool. I've been there, done that, too with the witnessing thing, and found no real benefit to it. I made just as many mistakes or bad decisions as usual. The only benefit was that I somehow felt that I hadn't made them. I'm not convinced that's a benefit. :-) Well, yes, my actions all seemed just effortlessly terrific when I had the witnessing going, too. Totally guilt-free living! Given the scandals and sleaze, it appears that the Enlightened state has little bearing on actions - they are the same whether you feel responsible or not. It doesn't make your behavior good or moral (uh oh, could this be the 3 gunas doing it all?:)) Second, can you give me a reason why one would prefer to believe more in not the decider than decider? As I wrote about earlier, I just don't get it; it's just not my predilection. What would you perceive as the *benefit* of not the decider being true? I like how I feel now as the Decider (not witnessing). I like that feeling of control and the sense that I am responsible for what I do and say. It seems right and good and certainly all of our cultures are based on this assumption. Makes me feel creative and I like to think about things, anyway, so the sequence of thoughts and ideas is rewarding to me. Yup. From where I am now, I kind of dislike the idea of not the decider frankly. But having experienced it many times, the feeling of freedom and lightness and ease while in that non deciding state was pretty wonderful. So I don't sit around looking at life and people and thinking they are not really responsible for what their brains come up with. I do hold people accountable, myself included. Very accountable. I blame people, get angry. But in the back of my mind, once in a while, I recognize that it may not be as it seems. I don't know how to combine the 2 points of view. But I do accept that maybe science is going to find this all out and it may be that we have less free will or none - despite what it feels like. Having had that nondeciding experience, I look to what I read about brain function with an eye out for an explanation. Good answer, and I understand. Me, I'm not big on explanations, and since I don't believe any of these different subjective states of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Radha Ma RIP
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Does anyone know why she would do such a thing? I had never heard of her, but I just looked at her Facebook page. Self- immolation -- wtf? The Nisargadatta Yahoo Group has a few posts on this. Here's one that's pretty wild by someone who claims to be a former follower: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nisargadatta/message/98608 I saw a comment elsewhere by someone who said they knew her; this person said she was bipolar. Really pretty ghastly, whatever her motivation. It's going to be very hard for her devotees to deal with-- especially the ones who tried to save her life by putting out the flames (and got burned themselves as a result, according to the Nisargadatta group poster). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: A friend who is usually in the know of all things Thiru, just emailed me that Radha Ma http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/radha-ma commited self-immolation http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/radha-ma-attempts-self-immolation-in-tiruvannamalai/ on Saturday, and died on Sunday in a hospital. I haven't seen Radha Ma in Tiruvannamalai, I almost did, but we had conversations on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/radha.ma I am like a bird I only fly away I don't know where my home is I don't know where my soul is Baby, don't waste time to meet me I am like a bird... -- Radha Ma, Sep 2009 http://chi-ting.blogspot.com/2011/03/suicide-in-bunker.html You may not know her, she hasn't been the big guru, but she was well known in the indian scene in Tiru. You may have seen this interview, were she is quite charming: http://conscious-websites.com/blueprints/good/popup/radhama/radhama1.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Radha Ma RIP
WTF indeed. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, feste37 fest...@yahoo.com wrote: From: feste37 fest...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Radha Ma RIP To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 10:21 PM Does anyone know why she would do such a thing? I had never heard of her, but I just looked at her Facebook page. Self-immolation -- wtf? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: A friend who is usually in the know of all things Thiru, just emailed me that Radha Ma http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/radha-ma commited self-immolation http://richardarunachala.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/radha-ma-attempts-self-immolation-in-tiruvannamalai/ on Saturday, and died on Sunday in a hospital. I haven't seen Radha Ma in Tiruvannamalai, I almost did, but we had conversations on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/radha.ma I am like a bird I only fly away I don't know where my home is I don't know where my soul is Baby, don't waste time to meet me I am like a bird... -- Radha Ma, Sep 2009 http://chi-ting.blogspot.com/2011/03/suicide-in-bunker.html You may not know her, she hasn't been the big guru, but she was well known in the indian scene in Tiru. You may have seen this interview, were she is quite charming: http://conscious-websites.com/blueprints/good/popup/radhama/radhama1.html 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] Is Enlightenment Personal?
Character and self are not them same. Character refers to tendencies. Self refers to a psychological/mental identity. In enlightenment there is no psychological/mental entity that terms such as me and I refer to. There is no private self. When the mind tries to find it, nothing, quite literally, is (not) there. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com wrote: From: yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:46 PM Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, especially the last 2 sentences including The dream character continues being a dream character. If what Dennis says is a. the truth, essentialy; with no self-contradictions, b. then one could (imo) insert the word individuality here and there, placing it into Waite's context such that the statement: there's no individuality in E. wouldn't quite match what Dennis is saying. Individuality as a dream entity would simply continue after E. along the lines of chopping wood and carrying water. A further question would be how much importance people give to their/any dream characters. Ramana said you give too much importance to the body (easy for him to say). ... at: http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/Q_A_Details.aspx?cid=68qid=111 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: Some persons influenced by Ramana and HWL Poonja
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com wrote: From: do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Some persons influenced by Ramana and HWL Poonja To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:26 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/ramana_parampara.htm Ramana Maharshi never authorized anyone to teach in his name. This is therefore not a formal lineage. Correct you are, sir. Ramana recognized the foolishness of a lineage. Just more bondage. 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: Is Enlightenment Personal?
What you're saying is a pov differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional individuals); are indeed real although non-substantial and dream-like. Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of individuality is superimposed on existence through dream-like apparent conventionality. Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are real dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial in relation to Being, the Self. Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making the posts!! Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've seen that before. ... Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a dream-entity. The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it can be explained scientifically. ... otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion like a mirage. ... Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed exist, though is non-substantial; otherwise, you wouldn't have said you live near some town in Florida. (what town was that, Boca Raton)?. ... So even your mention of non-locality doesn't hold water wrt the dream entity Dr. Pete. He/you, does indeed live near Boca Raton as you said yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Character and self are not them same. Character refers to tendencies. Self refers to a psychological/mental identity. In enlightenment there is no psychological/mental entity that terms such as me and I refer to. There is no private self. When the mind tries to find it, nothing, quite literally, is (not) there. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:46 PM Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, especially the last 2 sentences including The dream character continues being a dream character. If what Dennis says is a. the truth, essentialy; with no self-contradictions, b. then one could (imo) insert the word individuality here and there, placing it into Waite's context such that the statement: there's no individuality in E. wouldn't quite match what Dennis is saying. Individuality as a dream entity would simply continue after E. along the lines of chopping wood and carrying water. A further question would be how much importance people give to their/any dream characters. Ramana said you give too much importance to the body (easy for him to say). ... at: http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/Q_A_Details.aspx?cid=68qid=111 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: Is Enlightenment Personal?
You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This is only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in waking state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't one in CC. So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is nothing. It becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. This is why the rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue that the snake exists as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying from waking state that your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is the tiger real. Once you shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer real in this new context. The same thing happens to the sense of individuality in CC. It's not there. There's only consciousness which has no relative measure. Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your dream ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! But it is a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but not for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it offers no tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make plenty of sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com wrote: From: yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:10 PM What you're saying is a pov differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional individuals); are indeed real although non-substantial and dream-like. Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of individuality is superimposed on existence through dream-like apparent conventionality. Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are real dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial in relation to Being, the Self. Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making the posts!! Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've seen that before. ... Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a dream-entity. The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it can be explained scientifically. ... otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion like a mirage. ... Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed exist, though is non-substantial; otherwise, you wouldn't have said you live near some town in Florida. (what town was that, Boca Raton)?. ... So even your mention of non-locality doesn't hold water wrt the dream entity Dr. Pete. He/you, does indeed live near Boca Raton as you said yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Character and self are not them same. Character refers to tendencies. Self refers to a psychological/mental identity. In enlightenment there is no psychological/mental entity that terms such as me and I refer to. There is no private self. When the mind tries to find it, nothing, quite literally, is (not) there. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:46 PM Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, especially the last 2 sentences including The dream character continues being a dream character. If what Dennis says is a. the truth, essentialy; with no self-contradictions, b. then one could (imo) insert the word individuality here and there, placing it into Waite's context such that the statement: there's no individuality in E. wouldn't quite match what Dennis is saying. Individuality as a dream entity would simply continue after E. along the lines of chopping wood and carrying water. A further question would be how much importance people give to
[FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment individual
Refer to statement of Dr. Greg Goode, previously posted, especially his last sentence. As I understand what he's saying, the real question of importance is, does anything exist? If existence is real, (i.e. not the null-set); then we can redefine it (existence) as dream-like conventionality. Then, dream-individuals are consistent with this existence. They exist, can be located, have names like Maharishi and Ramana, and can be located in the dream world as occupying space/time; and are distinguished from other individuals. Similarly, dogs, cats,..etc; are not persons but are individual entities. Thus, Ramana was able to say that the cow Lakshmi had attained Self-Realization; as an individual animal disguishable from the other animals at the Ashram such as the crow, dog, etc (some of whom were given personal Names).. Dr. Goode says: If anything exists, then it exists in an individual way. I say if. So let's assume for a moment that enlightened persons exist. Look at how the different traditions portray them: In the satsang format, it is a person with very large eyes who walks and talks very slowly and looks deeply into the eyes of others. In neo-advaita, it is a mind-body with no doership inside. In Indian Advaita-Vedanta, it would be a swami wearing an ochre robe uttering a lot of Sanskrit phrases. In Zen, it would be a very stern old man with a shaved head who shouts oracular phrases at unpredictable times and laughs at other unpredictable times. In Tibetan Buddhism it would be a person with a shaved head with an endearingly sweet smile all the time. Even the sterotypical images of enlightenment are individualized and distinct from each other, and we haven't gotten down to the level of the person yet. So whatever exists, exists in a context of difference from other existents. But the big question is, just what, if anything, what really exists?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal?
Nobody is saying there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. What people (many people including Buddhists) are saying that individuals as dream entities are real (i.e. they are real dream entities having the property of individuality). It appears that all non-dualists are agreed on your statement as to the center of consciousness. But isn't this rather obvious? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This is only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in waking state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't one in CC. So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is nothing. It becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. This is why the rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue that the snake exists as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying from waking state that your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is the tiger real. Once you shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer real in this new context. The same thing happens to the sense of individuality in CC. It's not there. There's only consciousness which has no relative measure. Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your dream ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! But it is a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but not for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it offers no tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make plenty of sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:10 PM What you're saying is a pov differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional individuals); are indeed real although non-substantial and dream-like. Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of individuality is superimposed on existence through dream-like apparent conventionality. Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are real dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial in relation to Being, the Self. Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making the posts!! Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've seen that before. ... Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a dream-entity. The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it can be explained scientifically. ... otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion like a mirage. ... Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed exist, though is non-substantial; otherwise, you wouldn't have said you live near some town in Florida. (what town was that, Boca Raton)?. ... So even your mention of non-locality doesn't hold water wrt the dream entity Dr. Pete. He/you, does indeed live near Boca Raton as you said yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Character and self are not them same. Character refers to tendencies. Self refers to a psychological/mental identity. In enlightenment there is no psychological/mental entity that terms such as me and I refer to. There is no private self. When the mind tries to find it, nothing, quite literally, is (not) there. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@ Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:46 PM Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, especially the last 2 sentences including The dream character continues
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
I'm enjoying the spirited discussion, but I really feel left out of it. I'm gonna throw my hat in the Barry corner on this one. I think I'm progressing in the direction of what we might call spiritual experiences, but I am happy to do it out of the context of little self and big Self, or big T, or little t, or samadhi with thoughts, or absent thoughts. I mean, I find it interesting to hear the debate, and do not feel it is a waste of time. And I think it's neat that people are into making the distinctions. But I can't really muster any sustaining interest. I guess the householder ashrama has really taken hold, with all i's pressing and practical needs. (-: Oh yea. I've been following the Charlie Sheen rants, and really enjoying them. I confess, I thought he said said some pretty deep stuff at the end of his Torpedos of Truth --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: Also in samadhi there's no I. Ha ha ha!!! --- On Mon, 3/7/11, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: From: whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:48 AM Samadhi once established is not exclusively a thought free experience. It can be, but not really necessary. It is an abiding peace under whatever circumstances, thoughts or no thoughts. That's the point; all aspects of life enlivened by samadhi. We can isolate Samadhi if we want to, call it TC, or PC, or hook up electrodes to the body and prove its existence momentarily in somebody's physiology. But we still don't know if that person lives a life of abiding peace. We don't know anything about their integrated life - what they think, feel, and act like on any given day or night. Isn't that It - instead of Samadhi, glistening and glowing from within, at mind's length in its shiny glass case? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts. 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: Is Enlightenment Personal?
Correction: true: there is no individuality as a center of consciousness. Sorry. But false statement: There is no individuality, or There are no individuals. Correct statement: There are dream-like entities that can be considered conventional individuals. Otherwise, there would be no Dr. Pete to make posts. You (Dr. Pete) are a dream-individual although (true) there is no locatable center as that entity. I never said there was. These are different issues!. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: Nobody is saying there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. What people (many people including Buddhists) are saying that individuals as dream entities are real (i.e. they are real dream entities having the property of individuality). It appears that all non-dualists are agreed on your statement as to the center of consciousness. But isn't this rather obvious? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This is only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in waking state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't one in CC. So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is nothing. It becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. This is why the rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue that the snake exists as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying from waking state that your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is the tiger real. Once you shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer real in this new context. The same thing happens to the sense of individuality in CC. It's not there. There's only consciousness which has no relative measure. Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your dream ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! But it is a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but not for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it offers no tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make plenty of sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@ Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:10 PM What you're saying is a pov differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional individuals); are indeed real although non-substantial and dream-like. Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of individuality is superimposed on existence through dream-like apparent conventionality. Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are real dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial in relation to Being, the Self. Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making the posts!! Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've seen that before. ... Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a dream-entity. The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it can be explained scientifically. ... otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion like a mirage. ... Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed exist, though is non-substantial; otherwise, you wouldn't have said you live near some town in Florida. (what town was that, Boca Raton)?. ... So even your mention of non-locality doesn't hold water wrt the dream entity Dr. Pete. He/you, does indeed live near Boca Raton as you said yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Character and self are not them same. Character
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal?
Does it occur to you that possibly these are metaphors or not something that can be intellectualized or turned into a philosophy. The sense of oneness that one feels with the existence and the desire to somehow share it with others results in these metaphors, turning into a philosophy leaves most to be confused. But I agree enlightenment is very personal, the most personal and intimate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@... wrote: Correction: true: there is no individuality as a center of consciousness. Sorry. But false statement: There is no individuality, or There are no individuals. Correct statement: There are dream-like entities that can be considered conventional individuals. Otherwise, there would be no Dr. Pete to make posts. You (Dr. Pete) are a dream-individual although (true) there is no locatable center as that entity. I never said there was. These are different issues!. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: Nobody is saying there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. What people (many people including Buddhists) are saying that individuals as dream entities are real (i.e. they are real dream entities having the property of individuality). It appears that all non-dualists are agreed on your statement as to the center of consciousness. But isn't this rather obvious? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This is only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in waking state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't one in CC. So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is nothing. It becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. This is why the rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue that the snake exists as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying from waking state that your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is the tiger real. Once you shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer real in this new context. The same thing happens to the sense of individuality in CC. It's not there. There's only consciousness which has no relative measure. Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your dream ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! But it is a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but not for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it offers no tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make plenty of sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero yifuxero@ wrote: From: yifuxero yifuxero@ Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:10 PM What you're saying is a pov differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional individuals); are indeed real although non-substantial and dream-like. Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of individuality is superimposed on existence through dream-like apparent conventionality. Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are real dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial in relation to Being, the Self. Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making the posts!! Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've seen that before. ... Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a dream-entity. The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it can be explained scientifically. ... otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion like a mirage. ... Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed exist, though is
[FairfieldLife] Re: No Thoughts No Mantra No Transcendence
Well stated, thoughts are just floating around so for me a thought free experience seems to be an oxymoron. Its something you would tap into and feed if needed. Insisting on a thought free experience shows the attachment to the thoughts, like fighting against darkness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Samadhi once established is not exclusively a thought free experience. It can be, but not really necessary. It is an abiding peace under whatever circumstances, thoughts or no thoughts. That's the point; all aspects of life enlivened by samadhi. We can isolate Samadhi if we want to, call it TC, or PC, or hook up electrodes to the body and prove its existence momentarily in somebody's physiology. But we still don't know if that person lives a life of abiding peace. We don't know anything about their integrated life - what they think, feel, and act like on any given day or night. Isn't that It - instead of Samadhi, glistening and glowing from within, at mind's length in its shiny glass case? :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:59 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Like you, I do not consider the short blips of no thought experienced in TM transcendence, let alone samadhi. Possibly like you, they are no longer short for me, or rare. I can invoke them pretty much any time I want, and usually for as long as I want. But I don't even bother that often, unless I'm practicing a specific form of meditation for which extended periods of samadhi is a supposed goal. You'll be interested in knowing then that current TM promotional materials are associating TM style gaps in the thoughts to be samadhi. Both tm.org and numerous other we just love TM sites/ blogs are popping up all over, trying to claim the superiority of their magical thought-free samadhi. Since samadhi was re-discovered in Buddhist yogis a couple of years ago by respected researchers, TM pushers have been frantically trying to get people to believe that they're still the bestest. We have the research, honest! Unfortunately for them the only researchers that are buying it are the TB's and the hoodwinked converts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Does it occur to you that possibly these are metaphors or not something that can be intellectualized or turned into a philosophy. The sense of oneness that one feels with the existence and the desire to somehow share it with others results in these metaphors, turning into a philosophy leaves most to be confused. But I agree enlightenment is very personal, the most personal and intimate. The personal sense of I-ness, remains... So, even though one can experience the sense of 'I am Consciousness'... Beyond mind, body and intellect... Still, one has a sense of consiousness moving through this 'channel of Sat Chit Ananda, which is 'Me'... So, one begins to find that this sense of I exist'... Begins to desolve more and more into the 'Beingness'... So, the sense of the 'old ego self'... Begins to become 'transparent' more and more'... When the 'ego' dissolves completely... One begins to reconize the aphormasions of the Brahma Sutras... I am That...and so on... R.
[FairfieldLife] 'Samadhi is Witnessing the Witnesser'
Samadhi is just becoming aware of the 'witness'...to all experience... There has to always be a 'witness to experience' so whether there are thoughts or no thoughts, there is always the 'witnesser'... No matter how phenomenal the experience, there is still the 'pure existence(Sat), and awareness of that(chit), producing a state of bliss(ananda). So, therefore bliss is just the recognition that you exist... And because you exist, you can experience all of the phenomenal world..
