[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style enlightenment is actually of form of induced psychosis. Oh, and Robin Woodsworth Carlsen is definitely the go-to person on the causes of psychosis. (That's why we always use his middle name, you see, to make him sound more impressive.) It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as the universe as fluctuations of consciousness while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's serenity without drugs for some damn good drugs. At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Like Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, you mean? Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world as consciousness is among the mentally ill? Thoughts? If it were typical (I doubt that it is, but just for the sake of argument), would that mean that anyone who describes the world as consciousness is mentally ill?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count
On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:16 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 04 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 11 00:00:00 2011 272 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jun 08 00:06:21 2011 33 authfriend jst...@panix.com 20 sparaig lengli...@cox.net Wow, spare~~in less than 24 hours you're a solid second. I bow. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. Try faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I've found an interesting alternative definition: Willingness to surrender to dharma --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: [...] FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence necessary for samaadhi. (NB: energy [viirya] is dependent on brahma-carya: brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
The Shank tradition for Vaj is Vidyaranya. But he claim to be a dzogchen yogi so it doesn't matter who he says is an authority. He reads books and goes to webinars and teachings of Tibetans. He has no guru-s or sampradaya. He thinks of himself as the nor'easter Eckhart Tolle. He makes this shit up. He must think it make him look important. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! [...] And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble approach would be appropriate. Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic science is turiyatita, Cosmic Consciousness not UC. So you're left with, really, two options: 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the tradition. The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. Try faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. OK, just what does teh word faith mean? Belief without proof? Intuition? Strong in God? Knowledge of things not seen? L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I've found an interesting alternative definition: Willingness to surrender to dharma --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: [...] FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence necessary for samaadhi. (NB: energy [viirya] is dependent on brahma-carya: brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
There have always been wondrous and premature spiritual experiences on the way to self realization. To make them the exclusive province of TM is absurd. However, TM being very effective, especially with rounding, coupled with Maharishi's decision not to take on lifestyle choices for *most* of us, the technique could land you in some weird places temporarily. I say temporarily because the high or experience wears off and everything is back to ordinary. On the other hand, I would think a technique where a person never has their locked down version of reality challenged, except a few lights out sessions (dark retreats) would be boring and uninteresting. I could see a person after doing such a lackluster and barely useful technique for a few years, deciding to spice things up a little for themselves by becoming a perennial pain in the ass about all things TM. Hypothetically speaking, of course.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style enlightenment is actually of form of induced psychosis. Oh, and Robin Woodsworth Carlsen is definitely the go-to person on the causes of psychosis. (That's why we always use his middle name, you see, to make him sound more impressive.) It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as the universe as fluctuations of consciousness while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's serenity without drugs for some damn good drugs. At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Like Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, you mean? Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world as consciousness is among the mentally ill? Thoughts? If it were typical (I doubt that it is, but just for the sake of argument), would that mean that anyone who describes the world as consciousness is mentally ill?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Jai Guru Dev dude! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So like all visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as appropriate, and kept spreading his message. Nothing unusual about that, nor do I see anything unethical or deceptive about it. His primary aim was to raise the world's consciousness. In terms of his expression: The world is as you are, he succeeded in spades. So true. The Age of Enlightenment is manifesting so incredible fast now even on the collective level. And what is considered advanced experiences towards experiences of Being today will shortly be commomplace. The understanding of our place in the Universe, so much mis-understood in the past will, within a few short years be increasingly comprehended. Our Space Brothers are about to be understood as Brothers, doing great works for humanity without which our civilization would long be doomed. This is Maharishis accomplishment; making the Full Sunhine of the Age of Enlightenment a permant reality for all generations to come. This is what he aimed at, by sacrificing his life to humanity, and this is what he accomplished. Some few fortunate souls, so dear to his heart, the true Pioneers of the Age of Enlightenment, have already made Enlightenment a reality in daily life ! Soon their accomplishments will become commonplace. It is said that the Buddha enlightened 500 people. I think we will do better. All Glory to the Pioneers of The Age of Enlightenment, all glory to Guru Dev ! Jai Guru Dev !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said about spirituality being measurably reflected in the physiology. I think he believed this till CC. Well, that's the big step. After consciousness is established in that state then it becomes independent of physiology in his system. (the brain can ever rot!) There are still some physical components to refinement of perception through the mythical soma (produced miraculously out of semen for dudes.) And in the stomach too, no? But that doesn't affect the independent consciousness but only perception to GC. (Oh my God! I mean really, really, OH MY GOD!) Then after Unity you have leisha vidya (I've never been sure how to spell the first part, but I'm pretty sure the second part is avidya, no? The phrase means remains of ignorance. So it would be leish avidya, I believe.) In any case, leish avidya would have to be related to the physiology, wouldn't it? It's because you're still *in* a body that you have it. which I suspect was one of his personal excuses for banging groupies. His approach was holistic no matter who he was talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of audience. If you missed the lectures showing his contempt for science you might just catch it from his positioning of his subjective means of gaining knowledge compared to science. Sure, but that isn't what I'm talking about. And here is my sincere beef with the guy. He played up the limitations of the scientific method and claimed that his techniques gave us access to not only a new way of feeling about our own identity (I am eternal and will never perish), but also claimed that we could have a reliable way to know about the way the world actually works from inside our minds (which he would claim was deeper than that in consciousness). But he never produced any examples of anything that he or any of his followers got from inside that turned out to be really important or interesting to the rest of us. In fact dreams have so far produced much more fodder for scientific exploration than any of the TMer's states of mind. Important or interesting to the rest of us isn't necessarily comprehensive. Granted, no Nobel Prizes to TMers, as far as we know (but it's entirely possible we might not know if there were), but I'm not positive scientific exploration per se is the sine qua non. So I have a strong dislike for politicians or gurus who play on most people's unfamiliarity of the methods of science as a confidence game to make it seem like their speculations about how the world works is deeper than that. Well, who wouldn't? But I'm not convinced that's what MMY was doing. I am not anti-speculation in and of itself. It is an important part of the creative process. But at some point we need to sort out the BS from the substantial and Maharishi had no interest in that process since it was his speculations that were causing his success on all levels. Cynically, money and power. More charitably, more people who believed that he was a unique person who knew things we don't, and would accept his priorities for our lives and attention. So this point is not a superficial Maharishi bash for me. It strikes at the core of what I consider to be an honest inquiry into reality and I am no less serious about it than he was.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
methinks you will be at this a long time Curtis. Another dude, also with long hair and a beard, has been gone for 2000+ years, and people are still arguing about his message, purpose and intentions. And for the same reasons - they cannot help but filter the guy through their own minds, coming up with lots of thoughts about how *they* see the world, but not a lot of clarity or insight about the other guy's view. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So like all visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as appropriate, and kept spreading his message. Nothing unusual about that, nor do I see anything unethical or deceptive about it. His primary aim was to raise the world's consciousness. In terms of his expression: The world is as you are, he succeeded in spades. The attempt here is to make it appear that his two teachings were contradictory, so one of them must have been insincere. But if that's the case Curtis wants to make, he's got to do a lot better job of it than pointing to this particular statement. I get this point. I have spent quite a lot of time in the past trying to make this case with other examples. But it seems like a bit of a fools errand now. I have no real idea of his level of sincerity and can only speculate like everyone else. The fact that he was deceptive on fundamental issues like his own celibacy makes me feel confident that he was a master of shenanigans, but I accept that YMMV. His interaction with scientists was one of exponent of supreme knowledge to purveyors of limited knowledge. That alone ejects him from a pursuit of knowledge I respect. It worked better when I lacked intellectual confidence when I was younger. Then I thought his absurd overconfidence was cool. Curtis seems to believe that because MMY didn't meet *his* scientific standards, MMY therefore had no respect for science and was just doing PR to fool people into thinking he did. That is the thing about the universality of the scientific method. I am not judging him by MY standards. There is good science, fraudulent science, shitty science and all the stages in between. But one step off good science is a big one and guys like Maharishi are not the only ones pulling this, look at how politics attempts to turn good science into shitty science for convenience. I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said about spirituality being measurably reflected in the physiology. I think he believed this till CC. After consciousness is established in that state then it becomes independent of physiology in his system. (the brain can ever rot!) There are still some physical components to refinement of perception through the mythical soma (produced miraculously out of semen for dudes.) But that doesn't affect the independent consciousness but only perception to GC. (Oh my God! I mean really, really, OH MY GOD!) Then after Unity you have leisha vidya which I suspect was one of his personal excuses for banging groupies. His approach was holistic no matter who he was talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of audience. If you missed the lectures showing his contempt for science you might just catch it from his positioning of his subjective means of gaining knowledge compared to science. And here is my sincere beef with the guy. He played up the limitations of the scientific method and claimed that his techniques gave us access to not only a new way of feeling about our own identity (I am eternal and will never perish), but also claimed that we could have a reliable way to know about the way the world actually works from inside our minds (which he would claim was deeper than that in consciousness). But he never produced any examples of anything that he or any of his followers got from inside that turned out to be really important or interesting to the rest of us. In fact dreams have so far produced much more fodder for scientific exploration than any of the TMer's states of mind. So I have a strong dislike for politicians or gurus who play on most people's unfamiliarity of the methods of science as a confidence game to make it seem like their speculations about how the world works is deeper
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Angels are merely a Semitic notion. There are no angels in the Veda-s, Purana-s or Tantra-s. Angelos means messenger in Greek, in other words a news-bearer - not even a messenger of a god. In Hebrew, mal'akh yhvh means messenger of yhvh. That is all. Fergit the notion that deva-s are angels. T'aint so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: You're obscuring the issues by conflating brains with subtle nervous systems. In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not having BRAINS (physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the Biblical statement about physically embodied Angels. ... It's obvious that Angels may have subtle nervous systems. I've met Raphael the Archangel. He has a body but it's not physical, thus no brains. ... Several people have asked MMY questions regarding existence after physical life, pertaining to subtle nervous systems. Such systems = a larger set than brains, which operate on our physical world. ... Again, some people believe that if one is close to Enlightenment, the goal may be attained without a physical body; through various Sadhanas of unknown nature. But the idea that people must have physical bodies is heresay, as is the counter proposition. But more options appeals to me as an idea. ... http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/celeste.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
At the core of an arrogant man is a traumatized child, hypothetically speaking, again.:-) Why would anything be excluded from self-realization? Conversely, why couldn't someone gain self-realization any number of ways? Notice that those who have nothing good to say about the sidhis often had very weak experiences with them? Unable to let go. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: The Shank tradition for Vaj is Vidyaranya. But he claim to be a dzogchen yogi so it doesn't matter who he says is an authority. He reads books and goes to webinars and teachings of Tibetans. He has no guru-s or sampradaya. He thinks of himself as the nor'easter Eckhart Tolle. He makes this shit up. He must think it make him look important. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! [...] And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble approach would be appropriate. Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic science is turiyatita, Cosmic Consciousness not UC. So you're left with, really, two options: 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the tradition. The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
true, but one doesn't have to know Skt or Hebrew in order to meet them. English works well. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/emerald-butterfly.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Angels are merely a Semitic notion. There are no angels in the Veda-s, Purana-s or Tantra-s. Angelos means messenger in Greek, in other words a news-bearer - not even a messenger of a god. In Hebrew, mal'akh yhvh means messenger of yhvh. That is all. Fergit the notion that deva-s are angels. T'aint so. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: You're obscuring the issues by conflating brains with subtle nervous systems. In ordinary every day parlance, Angels are considered not having BRAINS (physical nervous systems)...and don't bring up the Biblical statement about physically embodied Angels. ... It's obvious that Angels may have subtle nervous systems. I've met Raphael the Archangel. He has a body but it's not physical, thus no brains. ... Several people have asked MMY questions regarding existence after physical life, pertaining to subtle nervous systems. Such systems = a larger set than brains, which operate on our physical world. ... Again, some people believe that if one is close to Enlightenment, the goal may be attained without a physical body; through various Sadhanas of unknown nature. But the idea that people must have physical bodies is heresay, as is the counter proposition. But more options appeals to me as an idea. ... http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/celeste.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Oh how the mighty have fallen...
On 06/07/2011 04:12 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 06/06/2011 06:32 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/deepak-chopra-meditation L. Why do you say that? Seems like a perfectly find generic meditation. Were you expecting a thousand pundits chanting Rig Veda? Or him giving out some powerful guru mantra that would immediately pop your crown chakra open? He isn't even licensed for that. :-D SIgh. Did you miss his little song and dance that I am has no meaning while I am Deepak does? You're taking him out of context. Back in the day, he wouldn't even dream of providing meditation instruction on the internet. In fact, his books specifically said go find a TM teacher. The first new edition of Perfect Health he published after he left the TMO said a teacher is best but here's a sample meditation you can try just to relax. These days, he doesn't even bother with that caveat. Now, he may well believe that all meditations are the same, but I get the impression that he doesn't believe that but just wants his name in front of people as often as possible so he will suggest things that he used to say weren't of value and suggest that they ARE of value. Lawson A guided meditation like he is teaching is harmless. Most gurus would not consider doing such a thing because they have a better set of instructions that they will only give one on one. At some point a guru might wonder is there isn't something they can do to help people until they can get personal instruction. Something harmless as this is will suffice. In fact I have an set of tapes of his from the 1990s where he gave similar techniques. And of course none of these things are new and a lot of people have written books with these techniques in them. If he gave a Sanskrit mantra that would be another story though others here might argue (depending on the mantra) that might be okay too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Vaj: Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. Vaj quotes a fictional character from the Canteñada books to nail down his arguments. So is this guy a bull-shitter or not? I think troll sums it up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style enlightenment is actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as the universe as fluctuations of consciousness while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's serenity without drugs for some damn good drugs. At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world as consciousness is among the mentally ill? Thoughts? On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:38 PM, sparaig wrote: But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human] consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain way.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:16 PM, FFL PostCount wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jun 04 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Jun 11 00:00:00 2011 272 messages as of (UTC) Wed Jun 08 00:06:21 2011 33 authfriend jstein@... 20 sparaig LEnglish5@... Wow, spare~~in less than 24 hours you're a solid second. I bow. And he says more in one post than the rest of us-- especially you--say in twenty. What *is* the obsession among Barry and his dittoheads with the posting numbers of TMers? It's as if they have a very peculiar form of OCD that they try to use as a weapon when they can't think of anything else to insult us with. I mean, Sal actually had to go to Yahoo Advanced Search and check the time Lawson made his posts. That just isn't sane. Barry does the same thing with me, only he includes what he thinks are the *topics* of the posts. And then he counts and categorizes his own (inaccurately to boot)! These are very, very weird people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? It does involve fairly elaborate acrobatics to get to no fracking difference. If you read a later post of mine, I pointed out that rishi-devata-chhandas could account for it, just as you go on to do in another post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Not just faith but rather faithfulness. Pledging your fidelity of good faith. Something or someone worthy of trust or belief. Samaya - as in words of honor from a knight to his liege lord. Prussian: Troth - truthfulness. English - Betroth ... pledge of trust between a husband and wife. Meine Erhe Heisst Treue - My Honor is my Loyalty. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote: This is not a definition but rather an interpretation. Try faithfulness' ... a present-tense definition of shraddha. OK, just what does teh word faith mean? Belief without proof? Intuition? Strong in God? Knowledge of things not seen? L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I've found an interesting alternative definition: Willingness to surrender to dharma --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: [...] FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence necessary for samaadhi. (NB: energy [viirya] is dependent on brahma-carya: brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
(snip) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: According to Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, TM-style enlightenment is actually of form of induced psychosis. It is perceived exactly as described, but is in fact a form of psychosis. Given that one can experience such things as the universe as fluctuations of consciousness while under the influence of various different psychedelics, it sounds like it would be safer to eschew TM's serenity without drugs for some damn good drugs. At least you don't end up insane (typically) as the end result. Give me some Don Juan Matus anytime over becoming the latest self-proclaimed Super-Rishi or Raja. It makes me wonder how typical a description of the world as consciousness is among the mentally ill? Thoughts? (snip) What world would exist without... 'Consiousness'... What world exists while you are in deep sleep? Do you know what your name is while in deep sleep? Do you know anything in deep sleep...? It seems obvious, that nothing exists without 'Consciousness' ... 'Consciousness is the basis for 'Existence' itself...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh how the mighty have fallen...
A mahaa-mantra like om namaH Shivaaya or om namo naraayanaaya would be simple. However it is the instructions for use that require interactions with a teacher. This is true even for a simple mahaa-mantra. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 06/07/2011 04:12 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: On 06/06/2011 06:32 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/deepak-chopra-meditation L. Why do you say that? Seems like a perfectly find generic meditation. Were you expecting a thousand pundits chanting Rig Veda? Or him giving out some powerful guru mantra that would immediately pop your crown chakra open? He isn't even licensed for that. :-D SIgh. Did you miss his little song and dance that I am has no meaning while I am Deepak does? You're taking him out of context. Back in the day, he wouldn't even dream of providing meditation instruction on the internet. In fact, his books specifically said go find a TM teacher. The first new edition of Perfect Health he published after he left the TMO said a teacher is best but here's a sample meditation you can try just to relax. These days, he doesn't even bother with that caveat. Now, he may well believe that all meditations are the same, but I get the impression that he doesn't believe that but just wants his name in front of people as often as possible so he will suggest things that he used to say weren't of value and suggest that they ARE of value. Lawson A guided meditation like he is teaching is harmless. Most gurus would not consider doing such a thing because they have a better set of instructions that they will only give one on one. At some point a guru might wonder is there isn't something they can do to help people until they can get personal instruction. Something harmless as this is will suffice. In fact I have an set of tapes of his from the 1990s where he gave similar techniques. And of course none of these things are new and a lot of people have written books with these techniques in them. If he gave a Sanskrit mantra that would be another story though others here might argue (depending on the mantra) that might be okay too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). There's no fracking difference guys! How can you miss this? (snip) Funny you should make this 'Idealist' and 'Materialist'... Someone who withdraws from the physical world would be someone like Guru Dev. It seems Maharishi was bringing the knowledge of the true nature of the Self, which he imbibed from Guru Dev., into the vast material world, and wanted to attract physical wealth to his movement... This is how I see it.. R.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! [...] And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble approach would be appropriate. Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. They may turn out to be really useful states of mind. ( I know, I know, they aren't states of MIND, only that they really are from my POV. Nobody has demonstrated transcending the brain's activity to my satisfaction.) I don't recall MMY ever saying that enlightenment involved transcending the brain's activity. In fact, this is one of my favorite quotes from him: Spiritual and Material Values Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi FWIW, according to Patañjali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhiprajñaapuurvaka itareSaam. (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-prajñaa-puurvaka itareSaam). Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence necessary for samaadhi. (NB: energy [viirya] is dependent on brahma-carya: brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. If I see a plane in the sky, there is brain activity at the same time. But whilst on one view that is ALL the seeing is, on the other view, the brain activity is the external presentation of the thing-in-itself, which also has an internal presentation (consciousness). Both views are equally real i.e the thing-in-itself from different perspectives. Perspective realism. sounds a lot like Sam Harris. (scientific materialism), brain comes first. ... Doesn't mesh with Sant Mat, in which the prized states rely on rising above bodily consciousness, completely disassociating from the physical. One can carry the argument further, in which somebody is traveling out of the body but in the meantime a home invader comes into the house, seeing the corpse-like body laying there, and shoots it dead. The entity - person comprised of subtle bodies, would then no longer be able to return to the physical. However, being dead, he/she would definitely not be a product of brain functioning. ... A reversed statment might involve the subtle bodies and karmic tendencies being the prior cause of brain functioning; since if everything is a result of brain functioning, this leaves out the possibility of people existing beyond the physical, doesn't it? ... Sorry, but I'm dismissing the brain functioning argument as a base, grossly false form of scientific materialism; typical of the Harris pov but I would expect better from MMY. At least he should read Shankara. ... But I can see into his strategy. As soon as one opens the door into the possibility of other dimensions and realms beyond the physical, it's a slippery slope to Deity worship; something poisonous apparently to MMY's mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! [...] And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble approach would be appropriate. Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. They may turn out to be really useful states of mind. ( I know, I know, they aren't states of MIND, only that they really are from my POV. Nobody has demonstrated transcending the brain's activity to my satisfaction.) I don't recall MMY ever saying that enlightenment involved transcending the brain's activity. In fact, this is one of my favorite quotes from him: Spiritual and Material Values Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote:
Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has
its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is
integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific
measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not
responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as
metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the
functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to
that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be
lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our
understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on
the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable.
-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Well, actualla, one of the nicknames of Vedaanta-suutra
is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
zArIrakamfn. bodily , corporeal c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk. by
S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
[FairfieldLife] Imus Talks Civil Unrest w/Carvelle...
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/carville-2012-could-be-very-rough-for-obama-says-civil-unrest-imminently-possible/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?...
Do you remember being in the 'Womb'?
Where were you between 'Lives'...?
When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'?
Does your body know it 'Exists'...
Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness
has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life
is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of
scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual
experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual
experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical.
Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of
scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is
present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is
taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality:
it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and
flesh and activity. It is measurable.
-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Well, actualla, one of the nicknames of Vedaanta-suutra
is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
zArIraka mfn. bodily , corporeal c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk. by
S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
[FairfieldLife] Question Re: Universal Health Care (aka ObamaCare)
If we had 'Medicare for All' and everyone paid in...that would be a start... Then, if we regulated how much providers would charge, that would be a second step... If we freed some money from the military industrial complex, that would be a help... If we freed some money from the prison industrial complex, that would be a help, also... It seems that the 'Money Traders' are keeping the pressure on to keep the 'Fear Level' high... The price at the pump is inflated... The more fear there is, the more greed seems to take hold in the mass consciousness... We are at a cross-roads of sorts... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: On 06/06/2011 06:32 AM, seekliberation wrote: Just a quick question for anyone on this forum. I'm a little out of touch with what's going on in the states, so I was wondering if anyone on this forum who did not have health insurance/coverage is currently receiving it now that Obama's health care bill passed. Also, if you are receiving it, how much does it cost? I'm not presenting this topic for the sake of debate, but out of curiosity. At first I didn't like the idea of the bill, but if it results in family and friends who don't have health care receiving it now, then I guess I have nothing to complain about. But my concern now is that my Mom and Sister still have no health care, and i'm just wondering if anyone else does. seekliberation I have Anthem Blue Cross and just got a notice that of all things my premium is going down 8%. They also are now going to bill monthly. I bet a lot of people couldn't come up with the amount of cash for a bi-monthly plus it reminded people of how expensive health care is. My premium also went down as more in my group qualify for Medicare which I do too at the end of the year. I have been paying $400 a month for a high deductible PPO plan. People say that's cheap and I tell them they are being scammed if they have higher insurance premiums. I think $400 is too much. High deductibles are ridiculous. Stop the American military killing machine and there would be plenty of money for single payer health care or Medicare for all. Private health insurance is a scam and Obamacare isn't much better.
[FairfieldLife] The Eternal, Transcendental Nature of the Soul.
The Gita cII, -Paramahansa Yogananda From joy people are born; for joy they live; in joy they melt at death. Death is an ecstasy, for it removes the burden of the body and frees the soul of all pain springing from body identification. It is the cessation of pain and sorrow...Ordinary persons enjoy the rest of a peaceful death-sleep in the eastral heaven. Virtuous souls alternate sleep with wakefulness in the land of blissful freedom and beauty. Devoid of the harsh, often destructive clashes of gross matter, these virtuous astral beings move freely and at will in bodies of light through endless tracts of rainbow-hued densities of luminosity that inform multivaried lifetronic landscapes, scenes, and beings. Their very breath and sustenance are the rays of subtle lifetrons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Eternal, Transcendental Nature of the Soul.
Some behold the soul in amazement. Similarly, others describe it as marvelous. Still others listen about the soul as wondrous. And there are others who, even after hearing all about the soul, do not comprehend it at all. The Gita cII, -Paramahansa Yogananda From joy people are born; for joy they live; in joy they melt at death. Death is an ecstasy, for it removes the burden of the body and frees the soul of all pain springing from body identification. It is the cessation of pain and sorrow...Ordinary persons enjoy the rest of a peaceful death-sleep in the eastral heaven. Virtuous souls alternate sleep with wakefulness in the land of blissful freedom and beauty. Devoid of the harsh, often destructive clashes of gross matter, these virtuous astral beings move freely and at will in bodies of light through endless tracts of rainbow-hued densities of luminosity that inform multivaried lifetronic landscapes, scenes, and beings. Their very breath and sustenance are the rays of subtle lifetrons.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:12 PM, WillyTex wrote: Dzogchen is just like TM practice, that is, it is the natural, primordial state or natural condition of the mind and a meditation practice aimed at realizing that condition - pure awareness. Dzogchen is nothing like TM practice. If you think it is, then you're very confused.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:24 PM, wayback71 wrote: And see post #194922 of a few years ago written by Vaj about Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche. Vaj has spent some time with him. How did that pan out for your friend?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Eternal, Transcendental Nature of the Soul.
The beginning of all creatures is veiled, the middle is manifested, and the end again is imperceptible, .. Why, then, lament this truth? Some behold the soul in amazement. Similarly, others describe it as marvelous. Still others listen about the soul as wondrous. And there are others who, even after hearing all about the soul, do not comprehend it at all. The Gita cII, -Paramahansa Yogananda From joy people are born; for joy they live; in joy they melt at death. Death is an ecstasy, for it removes the burden of the body and frees the soul of all pain springing from body identification. It is the cessation of pain and sorrow...Ordinary persons enjoy the rest of a peaceful death-sleep in the eastral heaven. Virtuous souls alternate sleep with wakefulness in the land of blissful freedom and beauty. Devoid of the harsh, often destructive clashes of gross matter, these virtuous astral beings move freely and at will in bodies of light through endless tracts of rainbow-hued densities of luminosity that inform multivaried lifetronic landscapes, scenes, and beings. Their very breath and sustenance are the rays of subtle lifetrons.
[FairfieldLife] 'Corporate Capitalizm is a Dead-End!'...
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 6:30 AM Cut the damn corporate welfare... Cut the damn military budget... Cut medical fees and money changers insurance thieves.. You git the idea, yea betcha! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
She took a few different brief courses with him and liked the practices and his teaching very much. REad a few of his books. Then took a day-long seminar on one of the techniques taught by an American trainee woman - and was very disappointed at her presentation of the knowledge (confusing and a bit disjointed and even inaccurate). she said this ainee had just ended a 30 day dark retreat and so might not have been at her best. Since the, my friend has gone to his center and taken a week long workshop. I am not close to this person in the last 2 years, so beyond that, I do not know. But she is a fine person with lots of integrity and I believe she felt she had found a very effective path for her. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:24 PM, wayback71 wrote: And see post #194922 of a few years ago written by Vaj about Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche. Vaj has spent some time with him. How did that pan out for your friend?
[FairfieldLife] War-in-Afghanistan= Control of Oil $ Metals $ Opium...'
Corporate Greed, once, doing it's thang... Dirty Money...buy's dirty things... $Stop the War Now!$
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie: A Somewhat Gentle Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Luther was tremendous. I've heard rumors there may be a second season, but have seen nothing of it yet. If it appears, can you give me a heads-up? June 14th I believe. Thanks. I've got the RSS feed already set up for the new episodes. If you can get it, I would think you would find The Shadow Line better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0111dqc; Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. For me, two key ingredients are (a) great theme music and (b) a really good baddie. I'd say this has both in spades. Stephen Rea as Gatehouse is excellent. More than excellent. This is one of the best cop series I've ever seen. And as much as I might hate to admit it, as you said, possibly better than Luther. I'm so hooked I watched all five of the episodes so far back to back. Now I'm on pins and needles waiting for the last two to be aired. :-) As for baddies, Gatehouse is looking like just the topmost layer. Almost everybody in the series is either already an excellent baddie, or in training to become one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Apparently I'm the only one on this forum that has listened to the complete MMY recordings from 1967. Go figure. Hey! Just for the fun of it why not listen to the recordings, and then post comments on them? Vaj: Really immaterial Willy. MMY began talking about BC years later than this. Incredible!!! Brahman Consciousness is the Being, the Absolute - it's the same thing that MMY has been talking about since 1954, which he articulated in his recording The Seven States of Consciousness. If you refuse to listen to the lecture, that's your problem. But, I would think that anyone claiming TMO status would have listened numerous times to MMY's recordings. Go figure. 'Therefore, these three states of consciousness are based on pure consciousness, Absolute Being. - MMY, 1967 http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/seven_states.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce. I recall Maharishi being very much against genetically modified food, though I don't recall why. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Description: Letterhead June 6, 2011 Mr. Blake Overall PO Box 161 Fairfield, IA 52556-0003 Dear Blake: Thank you for taking the time to inform me about your concerns and views relating to federal rules and processes for regulating and labeling genetically engineered (GE) crops. Given the rapid development and dissemination of GE crops, it is essential to have a strong and effective federal regulatory and oversight system to assess risks that may be associated with this technology, and to take appropriate steps to protect human health and the environment, including other plants and crops, against such risks. In the United States, the regulation of agricultural biotechnology is divided among the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Determining what labeling of GE foods may be recognized or required is among the key biotechnology regulatory issues that we are currently facing. Some believe any labeling of GE foods or ingredients should be voluntary, while others insist it should be required in order to inform consumers precisely what they are eating. In general, I favor more information for consumers, provided it is accurate. Presently, foods may be labeled and marketed as not containing GE ingredients so long as any claims, such as about the safety of GE foods, are truthful and not misleading in FDA's view. FDA does not, however, mandate that food labels include any type of special notice disclosing that a food is genetically engineered or contains GE ingredients. FDA's judgment is that GE foods on the market are not significantly different from conventional foods in nutritional quality and safety. It is important to note that consumers who want to avoid GE foods have the option of buying those bearing the USDA organic label. As illustrated by the ongoing debate over labeling of GE foods, as well as recent controversies about GE alfalfa, sugar beets, and other crops and foods, important issues in the federal regulation of GE plants, animals, and foods remain unsettled. It seems almost certain these matters will be argued before federal regulatory agencies and litigated in the federal courts for some time. It is uncertain though just how, whether, or when Congress may address these questions. You can be sure that I value your views and perspectives on GE crops and foods, and related issues and that I will give them very careful consideration as these issues come before Congress and the federal departments and agencies having jurisdiction. Please feel welcome to get in touch with me again on this topic or any others that concern you. Sincerely, Tom Harkin United States Senator TH/dnh
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Vaj: Dzogchen is nothing like TM practice... The central practice of Dzogchen is meditation that is transcendental. According to Sogyal Rinpoche, a Dzogchen Master, the author of the 'Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying', meditation is not really a practice - meditation is not really something that you can 'do', but rather something that you 'let happen'. Maybe you're just trying to make this to mysterious.If you think differently, all I can say is that I've studied under three Dzogchen masters and they both recommended meditation as a practical way to realize the Buddha Nature (Rigpa). So, I guess I know more about it than you do, since you don't and never had a guru. Apparently Dzogchen is based on Bon ritual beliefs; but it is a fact that the historical Buddha meditated at least twice a day, and it's obvious to anyone who has tried Buddhist meditation, that it is very similar to TM sitting meditation. Photo of participants at a Shamballa Training Center, meditating together: If your mind is able to settle naturally of its own accord, and if you find you are inspired simply to rest in its pure awareness, then you do not need any method of meditation. - Sogyal Rinpoche
[FairfieldLife] Re: War-in-Afghanistan= Control of Oil $ Metals $ Opium...'
Robert: $Stop the War Now!$ So, we are agreed - the U.S. is in a war, and your solution is to just stop the war. How are you going to stop the war, without winning the war or even putting up a fight? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
FWIW, according to Patañjali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi... Well, yes, you have to have a certain amount of faith that the goal exists: samadhi. We don't know for sure that a state of samadhi exists, unless we experience it ourselves, but until that point, we have to consider what we do know and how we know it. We take verbal testimony as one source of valid knowledge. How else would someone even know about the enlightenment tradtion unless you hear about it from others. The most valuable practice in the sphere of dhyana is the simple system of transcendental meditation. Transcendental meditation belongs to the sphere of dhyana, but at the same time transcends that sphere and gives rise to the state of transcendental consciousness, samadhi. After this state has been gained the attention returns to the sphere of dhyana, which is a sphere of activity. (CBG p. 486)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? I guess that depends on whether they're as gullible as American TMers. The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
whynotnow7: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce... Whole Foods Market carries a full line of organic produce and meat. That's one of the reason I'm still living here. Is anybody else on an organic diet and if so, where do you procure your foodstuffs? I'm pretty sure I'd die if I couldn't eat organic brown rice every day. Whole Foods World Headquarters http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ Austin, Texas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? I guess that depends on whether they're as gullible as American TMers. Well, in India, part of the population thinks God had 5000 girl friends, another part believes God is Lord of Ganja, and another part believes God rewards virtuous men with 72 virgins in heaven. While, in the US, part of the population thinks they are the Chosen People, while the other part thinks Jesus is Magic. You decide. The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: whynotnow7: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce... Whole Foods Market carries a full line of organic produce and meat. That's one of the reason I'm still living here. Well, no, it isn't. Whole Foods Market has around 300 stores across the United States.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? Consider that there are also a significant number of fairly wealthy Indians, in India and the USA. What is interesting, is that none in the USA seem at all interested in TM. But SSRS's US following includes these middle and upper middle class Indian Americans and Indians. I think word has spread in India that the TM org is not so trust-worthy - and with MMY gone, there is no inspirational leader to keep interest levels high.. The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? Consider that there are also a significant number of fairly wealthy Indians, in India and the USA. What is interesting, is that none in the USA seem at all interested in TM. But SSRS's US following includes these middle and upper middle class Indian Americans and Indians. I think word has spread in India that the TM org is not so trust-worthy - and with MMY gone, there is no inspirational leader to keep interest levels high.. Yep, pretty clearly TM has an integrity problem that they have been suffering with for quite a while. Some kind of word seems to be out on that. The TM-Rajas are going to have to do a whole lot more than they've done to surmount the perception of their ethics/integrity problem going forward. The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference... authfriend: Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. Somebody got really mixed up! According to the author of Brahma Sutras, Badarayana, Brahman is what everything comes from. So, for the Vedanta, Consciousness is a product of Brahman. Pure consciousness is the Being, the Brahman itself, not an object of cognition. Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2) (Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed). 'Brahma Sutras' By Swami Sivananda http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference... authfriend: Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. Somebody got really mixed up! According to the author of Brahma Sutras, Badarayana, Brahman is what everything comes from. So, for the Vedanta, Consciousness is a product of Brahman. Pure consciousness is the Being, the Brahman itself, not an object of cognition. Yes, as I went on to say (and you snipped): He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2) (Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed). 'Brahma Sutras' By Swami Sivananda http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-02.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
Robert: Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?... Do you remember being in the 'Womb'? Where were you between 'Lives'...? When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'? Does your body know it 'Exists'... Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'? These questions cannot be answered because of human error. An error is something that should not be. Fact is, we don't see things exactly as they are - we see only parts of the whole. And, the mere fact of seeing changes the properties of the things seen. If things aren't as they seem, then how can know for sure if anything will be really real? If things appear to be so, but are in fact not so, then why so? If humans can err in the present, what would have prevented the wisest of men in the past from committing an error as well? So, the real question is: Who am I, really? Read more: Subject: Who Am I, really? Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date:October 10, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/3qlqdky
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... Yep, pretty clearly TM has an integrity problem that they have been suffering with for quite a while. In your mind only. Otherwise everything is going very well. Follow the maharishichannel and you'll see what is going on in the real world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
If you used to buy corn on the cob you may remember that not all ears were sweet tasting and in fact you could often come back from the store with nice fat mature ears and they still would be not so sweet. Now most all ears of corn are sweet. That's GMO. Same with strawberries. Monsanto is like an asura when it comes to this. The founder was idealistic and had a vision of saving the world from hunger. His management had other ideas though: how to become filthy rich by controlling the world's food. On 06/07/2011 06:20 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce. I recall Maharishi being very much against genetically modified food, though I don't recall why. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archerrick@... wrote: Description: Letterhead June 6, 2011 Mr. Blake Overall PO Box 161 Fairfield, IA 52556-0003 Dear Blake: Thank you for taking the time to inform me about your concerns and views relating to federal rules and processes for regulating and labeling genetically engineered (GE) crops. Given the rapid development and dissemination of GE crops, it is essential to have a strong and effective federal regulatory and oversight system to assess risks that may be associated with this technology, and to take appropriate steps to protect human health and the environment, including other plants and crops, against such risks. In the United States, the regulation of agricultural biotechnology is divided among the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Determining what labeling of GE foods may be recognized or required is among the key biotechnology regulatory issues that we are currently facing. Some believe any labeling of GE foods or ingredients should be voluntary, while others insist it should be required in order to inform consumers precisely what they are eating. In general, I favor more information for consumers, provided it is accurate. Presently, foods may be labeled and marketed as not containing GE ingredients so long as any claims, such as about the safety of GE foods, are truthful and not misleading in FDA's view. FDA does not, however, mandate that food labels include any type of special notice disclosing that a food is genetically engineered or contains GE ingredients. FDA's judgment is that GE foods on the market are not significantly different from conventional foods in nutritional quality and safety. It is important to note that consumers who want to avoid GE foods have the option of buying those bearing the USDA organic label. As illustrated by the ongoing debate over labeling of GE foods, as well as recent controversies about GE alfalfa, sugar beets, and other crops and foods, important issues in the federal regulation of GE plants, animals, and foods remain unsettled. It seems almost certain these matters will be argued before federal regulatory agencies and litigated in the federal courts for some time. It is uncertain though just how, whether, or when Congress may address these questions. You can be sure that I value your views and perspectives on GE crops and foods, and related issues and that I will give them very careful consideration as these issues come before Congress and the federal departments and agencies having jurisdiction. Please feel welcome to get in touch with me again on this topic or any others that concern you. Sincerely, Tom Harkin United States Senator TH/dnh
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
On 06/07/2011 08:04 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTexwillytex@... wrote: whynotnow7: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce... Whole Foods Market carries a full line of organic produce and meat. That's one of the reason I'm still living here. Well, no, it isn't. Whole Foods Market has around 300 stores across the United States. It also has a nickname: Whole Wallet Foods. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Corporate Capitalizm is a Dead-End!'...
On 06/07/2011 04:32 AM, Robert wrote: Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2011, 6:30 AM Cut the damn corporate welfare... Cut the damn military budget... Cut medical fees and money changers insurance thieves.. You git the idea, yea betcha! R.G. This is what we're up against: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110605_empire.htm With a scheme like that we're pretty much screwed. It's the extension of the original Neocon dream which is a nightmare for the rest of us. And you have both Republicorps and Democorps supporting it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 06/07/2011 08:04 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTexwillytex@ wrote: whynotnow7: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce... Whole Foods Market carries a full line of organic produce and meat. That's one of the reason I'm still living here. Well, no, it isn't. Whole Foods Market has around 300 stores across the United States. It also has a nickname: Whole Wallet Foods. :-D Known as Whole Paycheck on the East Coast.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote. I think I would say yes yes. Between asterix (asterixes?), true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied by consciousness is the product of brain functioning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie: A Somewhat Gentle Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: If you can get it, I would think you would find The Shadow Line better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0111dqc; Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. For me, two key ingredients are (a) great theme music and (b) a really good baddie. I'd say this has both in spades. Stephen Rea as Gatehouse is excellent. More than excellent. This is one of the best cop series I've ever seen. And as much as I might hate to admit it, as you said, possibly better than Luther. The cop with the bullet in his head is played by the exotically named Chiwetel Ejiofor. I didn't twig immediately, but he is the self-same who played the drag queen Lola in Kinky Boots. Some acting range there!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: Follow the maharishichannel and you'll see what is going on in the real world. I have to thank Nabby for providing the best laugh of the week so far, possibly the year.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie: A Somewhat Gentle Man
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: If you can get it, I would think you would find The Shadow Line better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0111dqc; Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. For me, two key ingredients are (a) great theme music and (b) a really good baddie. I'd say this has both in spades. Stephen Rea as Gatehouse is excellent. More than excellent. This is one of the best cop series I've ever seen. And as much as I might hate to admit it, as you said, possibly better than Luther. The cop with the bullet in his head is played by the exotically named Chiwetel Ejiofor. I didn't twig immediately, but he is the self-same who played the drag queen Lola in Kinky Boots. Some acting range there! He also stole the screen in Dirty Pretty Things and as The Operative in Serenity, not to mention excellent work in Children Of Men, Inside Man, and American Gangster. He and Idris Elba are the best black actors working in the UK, their version of Denzel Washington.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote. I think I would say yes yes. Between asterix (asterixes?) Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek *aster-iskos*, little star.) true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied by consciousness is the product of brain functioning. Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). I think the only wiggle room is in Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase, which you might interpret as a way of invoking rishi-devata- chhandas, or Knower/process of knowing/that which is known, in which no member of the trio exists or acts independent of the others--meaning that no object of knowledge exists on its own; it exists because it is known by the Knower.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) I don't think you can base your two teachings premise solely on the basis of those two sentences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I think I would say yes yes. Between asterix (asterixes?) Noes! Asterix the Gaul! Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek *aster-iskos*, little star.) Thanks. Little star. Spot on!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. That's exactly right. There's nothing in the rest of that statement that would surprise or raise objections from believers, and quite a bit of it that might well elicit resistance from scientific materialists. It appears to me that the statement is at least as much directed at believers, to remind them not to be contemptuous of the physical, as it is designed to assure materialists that the physical isn't being held in contempt. Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I think I would say yes yes. Between asterix (asterixes?) Noes! Asterix the Gaul! Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek *aster-iskos*, little star.) Thanks. Little star. Spot on!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) I don't think you can base your two teachings premise solely on the basis of those two sentences. I had some more exposure to his teaching than just those two sentences. Why would you restrict us to just those this quote in any discussion about him here? I'm sure you know he wasn't a scientific materialist. I'm not sure what point you are making here. He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. Maharishi put a lot of time and effort into making his teaching available in stages so that people not already bought in would not interact with the stuff that required more belief support. I don't know if that is a plot or not but it is an irrefutable aspect of how he taught and is key to understanding why Maharishi might come off as a scientific materialist one minutes and then present the primacy of consciousness the next. And this rap was no looser talk than anything else he presented. It was as he himself characterized as the two sets of teeth of the elephant, one for eating and one for show. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) He did? It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not mark his card as scientific materialist. If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you feel assert scientific materialism?
[FairfieldLife] Today 4:00! - Waterworks Park swimming may be banned
Delivered-To: dickm...@lisco.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=4bX45xurwx0KyLyaJY1WvpblCI8PwqghiuV9E8DrbCw=; b=czeOtsMczFddlD+0ztAqiuMq/nfiAU1vsrnRGd4fus+Qm4ChXVNkVeYzHqh7OIaCdE HGudYjPKu6HeujJ2RlPVczjn5n9+Xj95qyzkWlWpn3J4AkgwW61MQx4H+wXC0z4SMlmF Rlod539rp4vno5CxB3CEJh6OORyL+Tb3eTsJ4= Bcc: dickm...@lisco.com Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:59:58 -0500 Subject: Today 4:00! - Waterworks Park swimming may be banned From: Sherry Hogue sherryle...@gmail.com To: Sherry Hogue sherryle...@gmail.com X-MagicMail-UUID: f71ec5ea-912f-11e0-a17b-485b39c0397a Reminder re meeting today at 4:00. Friends, Closing Waterworks to swimming would be a great loss for our town. I think the estimate of a thousand people using the beach in a year misses the mark substantially. For the relatively little money it costs to maintain the beach, it brings in a huge quality of life return to our community. I have heard many comment on how they thought swimming at Waterworks was one of the best things going for Fairfield. If you value this spot, please take a minute help keep it open! Waterworks Park Swimming may be Banned Fairfield Park and Recreation Dept is considering permanently closing swimming at Waterworks Park. There will be a meeting at 4 PM Tuesday June 7th in the City Hall to discuss the issue. All interested Fairfield residents are encouraged to attend, as a show of interest for continuing swimming as we have had it for the past several years. You can also help by: 1) Calling or emailing the Fairfield Ledger and ask them to do a story announcement of the meeting (not just listing it in the events/meetings calendar). You can note that many people (no doubt over a 1,000) use the beach every year, may not know that their use of it could be lost, and may want a chance to express their point of view at the meeting. Ledger contact info: 472-2116 Vicki Tillis, editor via mailto:n...@ffledger.comn...@ffledger.com or Jeff Wilson, publisher via mailto:p...@ffledger.comp...@ffledger.com 2) Forward this email to your friends and email lists (afer removing my email address).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) He did? It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not mark his card as scientific materialist. If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you feel assert scientific materialism? He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context for people living today because that is what they believe in. But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on physiology as scientific materialism. I guess the reason this has caused debate is that I am implying that Maharishi was talking out of two sides of his mouth and Judy and perhaps you would like to see him as more sincere. We all have to make our own choices on the sincerity question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) I don't think you can base your two teachings premise solely on the basis of those two sentences. I had some more exposure to his teaching than just those two sentences. Why would you restrict us to just those this quote in any discussion about him here? Those two sentences were what we were discussing, so your post appeared to be using the two sentences as evidence for your two teachings premise. But as I went on to point out in my next post, that statement as a whole appears to be directed as much to believers as to materialists, if not more to believers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
authfriend jstein@... wrote: Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing.--- I don't agree that this was loose talk. It was a consistent pattern of how he presented himself to certain audiences. Having spent days at symposiums hearing him talk with scientists, I know his I'm a scientist just like you rap really well. And I saw scientist catch him at his double teaching game when he tried to mix the two. Whether this amounts to Maharishi bashing or not has to do with our evaluation of the sincerity of his positioning I guess. But seeing the guy clearly and delineating the levels of his teachings accurately is not bashing in my book. He was an ends justify the means guy. He was a master spin doctor. He also believed that he needed to dole out his teaching according to how bought in you were. He trained his teachers to continue this policy and spent a lot of time during TTC to let us practice the skills. But he was not a scientific materialist although he learned how to sound like one when it suited him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. That's exactly right. There's nothing in the rest of that statement that would surprise or raise objections from believers, and quite a bit of it that might well elicit resistance from scientific materialists. It appears to me that the statement is at least as much directed at believers, to remind them not to be contemptuous of the physical, as it is designed to assure materialists that the physical isn't being held in contempt. Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) He did? It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not mark his card as scientific materialist. If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you feel assert scientific materialism? He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context for people living today because that is what they believe in. But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on physiology as scientific materialism. But it isn't, except for those two sentences. I guess the reason this has caused debate is that I am implying that Maharishi was talking out of two sides of his mouth and Judy and perhaps you would like to see him as more sincere. We all have to make our own choices on the sincerity question. My point was that you homed in on those two sentences as if they made your case. They don't. You just used them as an excuse to inject your standard MMY-as-insincere bash.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Movie: A Somewhat Gentle Man
On 06/07/2011 10:32 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGapcompost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoisebno_reply@ wrote: If you can get it, I would think you would find The Shadow Line better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0111dqc; Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. For me, two key ingredients are (a) great theme music and (b) a really good baddie. I'd say this has both in spades. Stephen Rea as Gatehouse is excellent. More than excellent. This is one of the best cop series I've ever seen. And as much as I might hate to admit it, as you said, possibly better than Luther. The cop with the bullet in his head is played by the exotically named Chiwetel Ejiofor. I didn't twig immediately, but he is the self-same who played the drag queen Lola in Kinky Boots. Some acting range there! He also stole the screen in Dirty Pretty Things and as The Operative in Serenity, not to mention excellent work in Children Of Men, Inside Man, and American Gangster. He and Idris Elba are the best black actors working in the UK, their version of Denzel Washington. I moved a couple DVDs up to the top of my queue on Netflix. Both are Spain's version of After Dark Horror Fest and so far the films have been generally better than the American version. Both fests are distributed by Lionsgate. They're also mostly 75 minutes long and apparently shown on broadcast TV in Spain. Always reminds me how the US broadcast industry caters to a tiny vocal minority as far as broadcast content goes. And now people have stopped watching broadcast TV in droves and are watching streaming online. In some cases they lost viewers because the station's marketing department wanted to keep the magic number branding like it's news on 7 and when the digital transition came moved the HD channel down from UHF to VHF (on upper band VHF they could do that). All of a sudden people who got the station fine with UHF couldn't get it anymore. 8VSB doesn't do well at lower frequencies and I bet the engineers argued with marketing over it. And of course the marketing brain dead won.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: He found the presentation of scientific materialism useful as a marketing strategy, which he laid out explicitly in his SOB. (favorite acronym ever!) He did? It's a long time since I SOBbed ;-) But I did read it once, cover to cover, and I certainly did not mark his card as scientific materialist. If you have a mo, could you reference some passages that you feel assert scientific materialism? He talks about presenting the knowledge in a scientific context for people living today because that is what they believe in. But despite the trappings of a Science of Creative Intelligence Maharishi did not hold the methods of science to be anything so valuable that he needed to respect them. And he didn't. I was characterizing his presentation of consciousness based on physiology as scientific materialism. But it isn't, except for those two sentences. I agree with that completely. But we are talking at x-purposes here perhaps. Judy and I are talking about scientific materialism. Curtis - I think you are talking about presenting TM in scientific terms. Because (it seems to me) you sometimes conflate a scientific explanation with a materialistic explanation, our discussion has become muddled. I think I would accept though that MMY was an ends justifies the means kind of guy. But I'm not sure that's a sin. I think it also likely that MMY was clothing TM in scientific language for marketing reasons (and pedagogy). That doesn't bother me much either. A fancy, epistemological (;-))name for that is pragmatism. But scientific materialist? No.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
Business, as usual? The TM-Rajas, can they show financial integrity in the active areas of the TM movement, yet? The teaching of meditation, MUM, MSAE, the pundits, the health products, the SVdesign, the real estate holdings, their cash position. Being transparent now may be in their own best interest going forward. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote: Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? Consider that there are also a significant number of fairly wealthy Indians, in India and the USA. What is interesting, is that none in the USA seem at all interested in TM. But SSRS's US following includes these middle and upper middle class Indian Americans and Indians. I think word has spread in India that the TM org is not so trust-worthy - and with MMY gone, there is no inspirational leader to keep interest levels high.. Yep, pretty clearly TM has an integrity problem that they have been suffering with for quite a while. Some kind of word seems to be out on that. The TM-Rajas are going to have to do a whole lot more than they've done to surmount the perception of their ethics/integrity problem going forward. The plan is being structured to have 5000 of these students come to Iowa to finish their schooling (huge applause). (by all 300 TB's in attendance) We're going to gather 9,000 people to regularly chant vedic mantras together as a group in Vedic City to conduct scientific research on any effects of such spiritual practices. http://www.invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Are they training the girls and women to be pundits there too? We don't hear or see much about the girls there. Has the old TM heifer cow here recovered enough vitality to house 5,000 more boys in a gulag? Seems after so many years that a lot of people are in recovery still from over-giving before. Lot of people dried up. Can Girish turn out the new Indian middle-class to pay for this? How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, merlin vedamerlin@ wrote: Dr Varma began by describing the history of the Brahmasthan project, which has grown to now comprise over 1000 acres, with space for over 2000 Vedic Pandits. In total we now have 7000 Vedic Pandits in 47 residential campuses throughout India. We also have 152 Maharishi Vidya Mandir schools in 16 states with 104,000 students. 40,000 of these are practicing Yogic Flying. Many of their parents practice TM and they also have group flying in many cities, with 40 to 100 flying together daily in each place read more http://www.maharishichannel.in/econtact_mailing/MAILING_OUT/2011_06/2011_06_04_mum.html I am so very happy all these years and $Billions we've finally reached the number for sustained Peace on Earth and an Age of Enlightenment. We need 7000 to the 7000th power? Oh, well, that will cost a bit more, won't it? Of course I can understand you had the math a bit wrong and discovered the error on May 21st. It could happen to anybody. And, the action points?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reply from Senator Harkin re GE foods
On 06/07/2011 07:38 AM, WillyTex wrote: whynotnow7: I wasn't aware that genetically engineered food has quietly taken over the market. At the same time, many of the major grocery chains now carry a very limited selection of organic produce... Whole Foods Market carries a full line of organic produce and meat. That's one of the reason I'm still living here. Is anybody else on an organic diet and if so, where do you procure your foodstuffs? I'm pretty sure I'd die if I couldn't eat organic brown rice every day. Whole Foods World Headquartershttp://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ Austin, Texas. Bad news for ya Willy: Whole Foods admits its organic foods contain genetically modified ingredients http://www.naturalnews.com/032628_Whole_Foods_GMOs.html Does organic brown rice go well with barbecued prairie dog?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So like all visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as appropriate, and kept spreading his message. Nothing unusual about that, nor do I see anything unethical or deceptive about it. His primary aim was to raise the world's consciousness. In terms of his expression: The world is as you are, he succeeded in spades. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: authfriend jstein@ wrote: Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing.--- I don't agree that this was loose talk. It was a consistent pattern of how he presented himself to certain audiences. Having spent days at symposiums hearing him talk with scientists, I know his I'm a scientist just like you rap really well. And I saw scientist catch him at his double teaching game when he tried to mix the two. Whether this amounts to Maharishi bashing or not has to do with our evaluation of the sincerity of his positioning I guess. But seeing the guy clearly and delineating the levels of his teachings accurately is not bashing in my book. He was an ends justify the means guy. He was a master spin doctor. He also believed that he needed to dole out his teaching according to how bought in you were. He trained his teachers to continue this policy and spent a lot of time during TTC to let us practice the skills. But he was not a scientific materialist although he learned how to sound like one when it suited him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. That's exactly right. There's nothing in the rest of that statement that would surprise or raise objections from believers, and quite a bit of it that might well elicit resistance from scientific materialists. It appears to me that the statement is at least as much directed at believers, to remind them not to be contemptuous of the physical, as it is designed to assure materialists that the physical isn't being held in contempt. Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: One thing no revolutionary is about to do is conform wholeheartedly to the status quo, whether in terms of science or religion. Maharishi would have gotten nowhere fast had he looked to science to validate his techniques. So like all visionaries, he spoke the language of his audience as appropriate, and kept spreading his message. Nothing unusual about that, nor do I see anything unethical or deceptive about it. His primary aim was to raise the world's consciousness. In terms of his expression: The world is as you are, he succeeded in spades. The attempt here is to make it appear that his two teachings were contradictory, so one of them must have been insincere. But if that's the case Curtis wants to make, he's got to do a lot better job of it than pointing to this particular statement. Curtis seems to believe that because MMY didn't meet *his* scientific standards, MMY therefore had no respect for science and was just doing PR to fool people into thinking he did. I agree that MMY's scientific standards were pretty low, but not that he didn't really believe what he said about spirituality being measurably reflected in the physiology. His approach was holistic no matter who he was talking to. He'd emphasize either the physical or the metaphysical (although he hated that word) depending on the occasion, but never one to the exclusion of the other, at least that I ever heard, and I've been in both types of audience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: authfriend jstein@ wrote: Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing.--- I don't agree that this was loose talk. It was a consistent pattern of how he presented himself to certain audiences. Having spent days at symposiums hearing him talk with scientists, I know his I'm a scientist just like you rap really well. And I saw scientist catch him at his double teaching game when he tried to mix the two. Whether this amounts to Maharishi bashing or not has to do with our evaluation of the sincerity of his positioning I guess. But seeing the guy clearly and delineating the levels of his teachings accurately is not bashing in my book. He was an ends justify the means guy. He was a master spin doctor. He also believed that he needed to dole out his teaching according to how bought in you were. He trained his teachers to continue this policy and spent a lot of time during TTC to let us practice the skills. But he was not a scientific materialist although he learned how to sound like one when it suited him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This distinction is a classic case of Maharishi's two teachings, the one he used for PR (scientific materialism) and the one he pulled out when there were believers in the room. He used his PR message to appear sciency (A method he actually had contempt for.) But I'm not convinced that's right Curtis. Yes, as Judy highlights, in this one quote MMY is asserting (at one point) scientific materialism. But usually he sticks more to this kind of thing: Every experience has its level of physiology. Someone who is not a acientific materialistic (moi!), might not find that the least bit offensive. Or so it seems to me. At worse, it's loose talk (and that's probably pedantic in the context). But it's not a plot. That's exactly right. There's nothing in the rest of that statement that would surprise or raise objections from believers, and quite a bit of it that might well elicit resistance from scientific materialists. It appears to me that the statement is at least as much directed at believers, to remind them not to be contemptuous of the physical, as it is designed to assure materialists that the physical isn't being held in contempt. Any hint of inconsistency, even if it's obviously just a matter of loose talk, will serve as an excuse for Maharishi-bashing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oh how the mighty have fallen...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 06/06/2011 06:32 PM, sparaig wrote: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/deepak-chopra-meditation L. Why do you say that? Seems like a perfectly find generic meditation. Were you expecting a thousand pundits chanting Rig Veda? Or him giving out some powerful guru mantra that would immediately pop your crown chakra open? He isn't even licensed for that. :-D SIgh. Did you miss his little song and dance that I am has no meaning while I am Deepak does? Back in the day, he wouldn't even dream of providing meditation instruction on the internet. In fact, his books specifically said go find a TM teacher. The first new edition of Perfect Health he published after he left the TMO said a teacher is best but here's a sample meditation you can try just to relax. These days, he doesn't even bother with that caveat. Now, he may well believe that all meditations are the same, but I get the impression that he doesn't believe that but just wants his name in front of people as often as possible so he will suggest things that he used to say weren't of value and suggest that they ARE of value. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; sounds a lot like Sam Harris. (scientific materialism), brain comes first. ... You're forgetting: it is consciousness all the way down... Human consciousness is a product of the human brain. The human brain, in term, is a product of consciousness. BUT, to hand-wave and say its all the same is to avoid dealing with the fact that for most people, it doesn't look the same, because their brains aren't functioning in a way that allows them to appreciate that fact. And as for the rest, shrug. I don't worry about home invaders too much beyond locking my door and keeping a disrupter under my pillow. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: How does it work with the money now? If someone donates money to MUM in favor of its mission or to MSAE or the dome program, is that money still bled off to India? It might or it might not. Do you specifically say where the money should go? Legally, no money donated to MUM should be going to India unless it is for scholarships for Indian students to study at MUM, but the burden of proof has to be on the accuser. In the case of the Kaplan brothers, they probably could have easily proven what they were claiming, but since they were set to benefit directly from their charitable donations they didn't dare take the TM organization to court because it would have landed THEM in more hot water. The TMO would have been forced to reimburse them but the IRS would have come after them for filing fraudulent claims about non-profit donations. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] French Muslims against evolution
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075011,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
I've found an interesting alternative definition: Willingness to surrender to dharma --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: [...] FWIW, according to Pata�jali, shraddhaa (usually translated to 'faith') seems to be a /conditio sine qua non/ for samaadhi: shraddhaaviiryasmRtisamaadhipraj�aapuurvaka itareSaam. (shraddhaa-viirya-smRti-samaadhi-praj�aa-puurvaka itareSaam). Taimni (Lawd, have mercy!): (In the case) of others (upaaya-pratyaya-yogis) it [samaadhi] is preceded by faith, energy, memory and high intelligence necessary for samaadhi. (NB: energy [viirya] is dependent on brahma-carya: brahma-carya-pratiSThaayaaM *viirya-laabhaH*!)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness
has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life
is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of
scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual
experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual
experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical.
Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of
scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is
present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is
taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality:
it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and
flesh and activity. It is measurable.
-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Well, actualla, one of the nicknames of Vedaanta-suutra
is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
zArIraka mfn. bodily , corporeal c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk. by
S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
Willingness to surrender to dharma-sutra...
L.
[FairfieldLife] Nutritionally Enhanced Plants
Nutritionally Enhanced Plants By Raj http://rajpatel.org/author/raj/ on 06/6/2011 in Via Twitter http://rajpatel.org/category/twitter/ Nutritionally Enhanced Plants = GM food, rebranded! Now with more vitamins! And even less regulation! http://t.co/1B3SgXL http://t.co/1B3SgXL http://rajpatel.org/ http://rajpatel.org/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@... wrote:
Which comes first, the 'Soul' or the 'Body'?...
Do you remember being in the 'Womb'?
Where were you between 'Lives'...?
When you drop the body, will you still 'Exist'?
Does your body know it 'Exists'...
Or is 'Consciousness' the 'First Cause'?
It might be the first cause, but HUMAN consciousness requires a human nervous
system, and human appreciation of Unity requires a human nervous system in
Unity Consciousness...
L.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness
has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of
life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of
scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual
experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual
experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical.
Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of
scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is
present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is
taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about
spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of
blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable.
-Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Well, actualla, one of the nicknames of Vedaanta-suutra
is 'shaariiraka-suutra':
zArIrakamfn. bodily , corporeal c. (= %{zArIra}) ; n. the soul or
embodied spirit or the doctrine inquiring into its nature MW. ; = %{-sUtra}
Veda7ntas. ; N. of an Upanishad (cf. %{-ko7paniSad}) and of a medical wk.
by S3ri1-mukha ; du. bodily joy and pain BhP.
[FairfieldLife] Question Re: Universal Health Care (aka ObamaCare)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@... wrote: If we had 'Medicare for All' and everyone paid in...that would be a start... Then, if we regulated how much providers would charge, that would be a second step... If we freed some money from the military industrial complex, that would be a help... If we freed some money from the prison industrial complex, that would be a help, also... It seems that the 'Money Traders' are keeping the pressure on to keep the 'Fear Level' high... The price at the pump is inflated... The more fear there is, the more greed seems to take hold in the mass consciousness... We are at a cross-roads of sorts... I'm in the process of moving to Holland. As I understand it, once employed, I can get a health insurance plan for $150/month that will cover virtually everything I might need. Unemployed residents get USA-ER-equivalent coverage, which isn't quite so nice (bad tooth? We're pulling it). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Eternal, Transcendental Nature of the Soul.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: The Gita cII, -Paramahansa Yogananda From joy people are born; for joy they live; in joy they melt at death. Death is an ecstasy, for it removes the burden of the body and frees the soul of all pain springing from body identification. It is the cessation of pain and sorrow...Ordinary persons enjoy the rest of a peaceful death-sleep in the eastral heaven. Virtuous souls alternate sleep with wakefulness in the land of blissful freedom and beauty. Devoid of the harsh, often destructive clashes of gross matter, these virtuous astral beings move freely and at will in bodies of light through endless tracts of rainbow-hued densities of luminosity that inform multivaried lifetronic landscapes, scenes, and beings. Their very breath and sustenance are the rays of subtle lifetrons. The reason why it is hard to get angels to enlightenment is because in Heaven, everything is so beautiful that it is hard to get them to close their eyes -MMY
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human] consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain way. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:38 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: It kind of shows how un-seriously Maharishi took this information that it would be up to ME to cough up this furball! [...] And given that the so called enlightened have so totally NOT lived up to the hype of what these states mean according to Maharishi, a more humble approach would be appropriate. Er, according to MMY, if one is actually in Unity Consciousness, one can perform any and all of the sidhis at any time. I don't know that he or anyone else (at least anyone within the TMO still) ever claimed that for themslves. As has been pointed out to you previously on numerous occasions, it is yoga-darshana that is enamoured with siddhis. The state of consciousness associated with yoga-darshana in Maharishi Vedic science is turiyatita, Cosmic Consciousness not UC. So you're left with, really, two options: 1. You heard it wrong and/or remembered it wrong. 2. The Maharishi got it wrong an therefore represents a departure, an impurity within these awakening traditions. It's almost as if you're locked into some OCD definition welded onto your brain, and you can't let go, lest YOU bring some imagined impurity into the tradition. The UC view of Vedanta, esp. in the Shank. tradition, not only avoids siddhis, it considers them antithetical to the evolution of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Vedic Pandit Program Part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ Yep, pretty clearly TM has an integrity problem that they have been suffering with for quite a while. In your mind only. Otherwise everything is going very well. Follow the maharishichannel and you'll see what is going on in the real world. Eh, I don't know if I trust the Maharishi CHannel, but I expect David Lynch to be honest about what is going on with his foundation. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
You're not making sense. True, everything is Consciousness all the way down, but not brains all the way down. Physically dead people can be considered human, but can function intelligently without brains. I've met many of them. ... Re: the notion that people must have physical nervous systems in order to get Enlightened, this is speculative. Some people say that if one is close to the goal, it can be reached through resident progress in various Lokas suitable for helping such people. (speculative again, but represents a possible alternative to the must approach). Haven't met anybody who knows for sure. ... http://www.fantasygallery.net/ravenscroft/art_4_golden.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: But in the context of the statement, everything IS physical. And [human] consciousness is a product of the functioning of the human brain. The fact that everything physical is consciousness all the way down doesn't mean that human consciousness can perceive this unless it is functioning in a certain way. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness is a product of brain functioning, etc; You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between the added asterisks): Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. Isn't it more accurately summarized as everything has a physical level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning? Metaphysically that's a big difference. Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit that consciousness is caused by (is the product of) brain functioning. And is physical is not the same as has a physical level. He may have really meant something more like your summary, but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what he wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two completely atypical theoretical questions from Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: [...] I think I would say yes yes. Between asterix (asterixes?), true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied by consciousness is the product of brain functioning. human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent of an angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether it is in time or space or both) observer without some kind of associated structure (nervous system). Lawson
