[FairfieldLife] Re: Rowing to Doha - Scene 3 - (was conflict in fiction)
F%%king hilarious! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: One of my admirers on FFL emailed me directly with the following suggestion: I love it, but if you want anyone to read the f**king thing drop the camera instructions. Scene 3 Our three intrepid seekers, Shankar, Wally and the photographer, who dresses like a Mormon missionary, wake up in total darkness in the belly of the spacecraft. They hear each other breathing and begin to speak. Photographer: Who's there? Shankar: Is that you NN? NN: Yes, it that you Shankar? Who the f**k is that snoring? Shankar: I think that's Wally, he was pretty hammered. NN: Where the hell are we? Shankar: Hard to say, it feels like we're flying and a little weightless? A moment of silence in the utter darkness. We hear the whirl of the ships engines, or maybe it's the sound of our heros thinking. NN: We've been abducted. Shankar: By what? NN: A spacecraft, you moron. Shankar: You know NN, you really need to slow down on the crop circles. NN: I'm telling you we're in a spacecraft. Try to find a door knob, spacecraft never have knobs on their doors. Shankar: You could be right, I certainly know enough knobs without doors. Suddenly a song splits the air: Allahu Akbar NN: What was THAT! Shankar: The Muslim call to prayer. Wally: Oh My, God's a Muslim. Just as suddenly, a wall of the enclosure disappears and the light blinds the seekers. Jai Guru Dev Slowly their eyes adjust and they look into the light. A man with a beatific smile and a rose in his hand  stands before them. His feet are bare. Shankar: OMG, its Maharishi! Maharishi: Where's Mark? Scene 2 SUPER IN/OUT - âI APPROACHED THE VERY GATES OF DEATH AND SET FOOT ON PROSERPINEâS THRESHOLD... AT MIDNIGHT I SAW THE SUN SHINING AS IF IT WERE NOON; I ENTERED THE PRESENCE OF THE GODS OF THE UNDERWORLD AND THE OVERWORLD, AND I WORSHIPPED THEM - THE GOLDEN ASSâ Then: We hear âCrossroadsâ (instruments only) by Cream. FADE IN: EXT. IOWA CORNFIELD - AROUND NOON An aerial shot of a black Prius speeding through an Iowa cornfield leaving a huge swath of flatten corn stocks in its wake. EXT. IOWA CORNFIELD-CONTINUOUS The Prius pulls up to a white farmhouse. Two tall hard looking men in dark aviators and grey suits unfold themselves out of the Preis. SUPER IN/OUT - âTHE HOME OF THE MODERATOR OF FFLâ The passenger looks at his driver and then looks back in the direction they have come. EXT. IOWA CORNFIELD-CONTINUOUS The camera pulls back to reveal a huge crop circle the driver created getting to the farmhouse. On the edge of the crop circle is a man dressed like a Mormon missionary taking pictures of the crop circle. EXT. IOWA CORNFIELD-CONTINUOUS The grey men walk up to the house and the driver pounds on the front door. A small chubby boy, with a bean shooter in his hand, wearing wooden clogs, and a barking Jack Russell by his side, answers the door. PASSENGER 'Is your Dad in son?' The little boy slams the door in the face of the two grey men. The passenger patiently knocks on the door again. This time the door is opened by a leggy brunette in a tight yoga outfit. The boy and the dog are behind her. BRUNETTE 'Can I help you?' PASSENGER 'Weâre looking for DICK BOWMAN, is he in?' BRUNETTE 'Can I tell him whoâs asking?' The man reaches into his jacket as the Jack Russell runs through his legs and starts barking at the driver who backs up against the railing. DRIVER 'Get this f**king off me.' The passenger ignores his partner. PASSENGER 'My name is ROBERTO COSTA and this is my partner CHRIS HAIRWELL. Weâre from the department of HOMELAND SECURITY. Weâre looking for a Dick Bowman.' The dog continues to bark at Hairwell who is still backed up against the bannister. BRUNETTE (SHOUTING) 'Dick, a couple of men are here to see you.' Dog continues to bark. A thin man with a beard comes up behind the brunette. DICK 'Can I help you?' The brunette walks past the agents jingling keys in her hand. BRUNETTE 'Iâve got some things to do at Walmart.' DICK 'See you later.' Dog still barking, Hairwell looks like he might be reaching for his gun. DICK (CONTâD) 'JACK, shut up!' The dog shuts up and walks over and sits on Dickâs foot. The eight year old returns with a water pistol and points it at Hairwell who is brushing dog hair off his leg. AGENT COSTA Agent Hairwell and myself are following up on a report. May we ask you a few questions? Dickâs eyes widen as he stares behind agent Costa at the crop circle. CUT TO: EXT. CROP CIRCLE-CONTINUOUS A space ship slowly descents and hovers over the man taking pictures of the crop circle. CUT TO: EXT.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip BTW, MMY definitely said that a test of Unity is if you can perform any and all of the sidhis to perfection. Robin and every other person proclaiming themselves in Unity on this forum rejects this claim (I presume because they can't pass the test). snip The question must be asked whether the siddhi requirement mentioned by Maharishi is true or false. No one in the TMO now and in the past appears to have demonstrated perfection in this; and in fact, it would seem that it might not be possible to detect the effect of all the siddhis. Maharishi did not appear to have given any demonstration of this requirement. Considering these powers are considered trivial or even a danger in some traditions, what are we to think? I think we're missing something that would shed a different light on it--full context, exact words? I don't think it means what we're assuming it means. I suspect it was one of his tricky statements like Reincarnation is for the ignorant. One could interpret that statement to mean that only ignorant (as in uneducated) people believe in reincarnation, but that was clearly not what he meant by it. I think something similar is involved with the unity consciousness statement, except it's most likely a lot more complicated. * * Or a lot simpler, or at least so it seems to me. Reincarnation is for the ignorant can mean exactly that. Only if we are identifying with a separate ego-point in spacetime, does reincarnation even make sense. If we are not primarily identifying with an ego-point -- i.e. if Reality has Awakened to ItSelf through a given bodymind -- then this bodymind contains all space, all time, and all egos. We can identify with or entertain any of them at will, but we are none of them. Where and how then is reincarnation to occur? And the same for the siddhis. Being no-thing, we have no siddhis nor desire any, but we can bestow the siddhis -- or fulfill any other desires -- upon an ego who has faith in Us and a true need, and we then experience the fullness of that desire's being met as an enlightening within in our physiology, as those egos constitute our bodymind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip BTW, MMY definitely said that a test of Unity is if you can perform any and all of the sidhis to perfection. Robin and every other person proclaiming themselves in Unity on this forum rejects this claim (I presume because they can't pass the test). snip The question must be asked whether the siddhi requirement mentioned by Maharishi is true or false. No one in the TMO now and in the past appears to have demonstrated perfection in this; and in fact, it would seem that it might not be possible to detect the effect of all the siddhis. Maharishi did not appear to have given any demonstration of this requirement. Considering these powers are considered trivial or even a danger in some traditions, what are we to think? I think we're missing something that would shed a different light on it--full context, exact words? I don't think it means what we're assuming it means. I suspect it was one of his tricky statements like Reincarnation is for the ignorant. One could interpret that statement to mean that only ignorant (as in uneducated) people believe in reincarnation, but that was clearly not what he meant by it. I think something similar is involved with the unity consciousness statement, except it's most likely a lot more complicated. I have always thought that some of Maharishi's off-the-cuff statements were the most interesting, like 'in unity consciousness, nothing ever happened' (which he said when talking to the Russian born, naturalised Begian chemist/physicist Ilya Prigogine). As one's spiritual experience develops, statements take on a less complicated sense, and logic and belief at some point go out the window. But logic is still necessary when one wishes to construct a reasoned argument. How one's words relate to one's experience has to be constructed anew, as if one had never known anything before, even though of course, one remembers stuff. Full context is the entirety of existence, and when one is making a reasoned argument, this expanse can never be fully worked in. Unlike reasoned arguments in quantum mechanics, which require a high degree of precision, spiritual arguments are very sloppy. Exact quotations may not be possible because they are translated from various traditions, or special words are used that come from those traditions whose meaning may not be entirely clear. Another factor is each person has a context of understanding (in TMO language this would include 'knowledge is different in different states of consciousness'), and on the level of individual human interaction, no one seems to share a completely common world view. The level of precision is variable. If I want to boil water, the exact position of a pan of water on a stove is not critical as long as the pan is more or less on or over the burner, nor is the temperature setting, as long as it is higher than a certain amount. If I use a quotation, it has a certain significance for me, and I use it that way. I don't know what others see in it, although I can have a general idea sometimes. If the quotation is actually a mis-statement, even then, I take it the way I understand it; historically, it is incorrect, but in the context of the argument, it might be of benefit, if its pedigree is not germane to the sense and logic of the argument. It still has a significance for me. Quite often I experience something I say to someone verbally is taken in a very different way than I understood it myself, and often there is no way to bridge that gap. I quite often hear something and suddenly I see, in a way, what others seem to be thinking, and I wonder how I could have been such an idiot for never seeing it that way myself. Here is an example from a tradition, what does this mean? This is a translation from Plotinus, I think it is Stephen MacKenna's translation, a very poetic one, and Plotinus is considered extremely difficult to translate, so I have heard: Nous has one power for thinking, by which it looks at its own contents, and one by which it sees That Which is above it by a kind of intuitive reception, by which it first simply saw and afterwards, as it saw, acquired intellect, and is one. The first is the contemplation of Nous in its right mind, the second that of Nous in love. When it goes out of its mind, being drunk with the nectar, it falls in love and is simplified into a happy fullness; and drunkenness like this is better for it than sobriety. But is its vision partial, now of one thing and now of another? No; the course of the exposition presents these visions as [successive] happenings, but Nous always has thought and always has this state which is not thought but looking at Him in a different way. In seeing Him it possesses the things which it
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). I have plenty to say both when dealing with the low vibe, slime ball writers and otherwise. I do have a life, works, friends, family - thanks for asking. I can't get to post until late in the day most of the times. So you are completely wrong that I'm here for attention except yours and other low vibe, slime ball wannabe writers. And I have completely different way of looking things than Judy, we both seem to be very emotionally secure and seem to sometimes come to a similar conclusion especially if it involves certain low vibe, slime ball writer wannabes. The BATGAP interview is only a lie for the low vibe, slime ball types since it becomes easy for me to play a similar game as them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Barry - I think she will be around as long as you, Vaj and other lowvibe, slime ball posters (your own words) continue to indulge in your lies and deception. It seems you would like to wish she disappear... ...it's not pleasant for her deal with low vibe, slime ball posters, it's not pleasant for others, sure she does come on strong but I'm glad she does what she does. Thanks Judy !! Ravi, let's review a little bit, shall we? YOU are the person with the most egregious history of lying on this forum. You came to *as the result of a lie*, having conned Rick into thinking you were awakened. You have since admitted many times that this was the case. You, in fact, have no history with TM or MMY at all, never having learned TM. But here you are, week after week, sucking energy on FFL because (IMO) it's the only attention you've ever gotten in your entire life, and now you're addicted to it. Judy never busts you on your *admitted* lies because you're in her posse. She can count on you to pile on to the same people she tries to demonize, as part of her ongoing obsessive behavior. You like Judy IMO *because* she's a classic example of obsession, and that enables you to pile on to the people on her Enemies List. If she weren't doing this, I don't think I'm alone here in believing that you wouldn't have anything else to say. Unlike Judy, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or get them to act the way they should. I merely present opinions, and allow people to react to them (or not) as they choose. I stopped interfacing with Judy directly some time ago, and it's as if she never noticed. She keeps writing to me, but IMO only because that gives her an opportunity to rag on one of her enemies *for the lurkers*. It's people like YOU she's writing to, not me. She's hoping to suck you into her obsession, and get you to obsess on it as well. For most people on this forum, that has not worked. They have lives. It's worked on you, and based on what you post here you don't seem to have much of one, other than to pile on to Other People's Obsessions and Other People's Enemies, in a kind of continual, needy Look at me...look at me act. My suggestion is that the people who ignore Judy's obsession and her continual (a minimum of 50% of her posts every week devoted to trying to get either Vaj, Curtis or myself) attempts to suck other people into it have somewhat strong minds, and lives. The only people she's managed to suck into this obsession so far don't strike me as either having very strong minds, or much going on for them in terms of having a life. The preceding was opinion. I don't ask that anyone agree with it, and I don't care whether they believe it. Now run that same test against Judy's rants. Seems to me that she cares VERY MUCH that other people not only agree with her, but act out the way she does, and join her in her obsession. It's probably a good thing that you and maybe three others on this forum do so, or she'd have to come to grips with the fact that her whole multi-year vendetta on this forum was a waste of time, and a waste of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Crop Circle today; nr Devizes, Wiltshire. Reported 25th July
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Rich and very interesting Crop Circle reported today: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/roundwayhill2/roundwayhill2011b.html Rory made a very interesting comment regarding the Crop Circles in general some time ago. Would he like to analyze this particular Circle ? The message seems quite evident: the Space Brothers claim to be the inseminators(?) of Homo sapiens...??
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
I have never heard that MMY declared Robin to be fully enlightened with no more growth possible. only that his experiences were sufficiently valid to have him describe them to other TM teachers. Thanks for the clarification Lawson, makes sense to me. However Robin's story seems to be much more dramatic and just doesn't seem to add up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception. I have never heard that MMY declared Robin to be fully enlightened with no more growth possible. only that his experiences were sufficiently valid to have him describe them to other TM teachers. Not THAT subtle a distinction, you know? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
I have to clarify further. Some of Robin's views seem to mesh well with my experience - that Unity is a transient state and that it doesn't match reality. However his conclusions and decisions since then seem very bizarre. That he was in Unity for 25 years seems odd, may be he meant post-UC.? I can understand his use of term mystical deception to describe his UC, because I think it's a good metaphor to describe it. It took me a long time to recover from mine, I had no clue what happened/ran over me and it took me a couple of months to understand and a while to integrate and rise so to speak. It's odd that it took 25 years for Robin to come to this conclusion and his use of metaphor to describe UC, so I think you are right that no heart and intellect integration has taken place - quite possible that some of his experiences were genuine. But then I read his experience on the mountain. He goes on to say how everyone could recognize his Unity, as if it is some final state, which is again bizarre. How the hell can anyone recognize someone attaining it, one's inner expansiveness, in my case everyone thought I was bizarre, mad and acting in an erratic, provocative manner. But his present stance is bizarre, he goes on change his beliefs to Christianity (I have explained it using the dirty underwear metaphor), I just can't fathom how he doesn't seem to have basic spiritual knowledge that techniques, beliefs are just tools to transcend and can be left behind subsequently. So you may be right that he lacks wisdom. Anyway, a weird story that just doesn't add up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: All this thinking here almost gives me a headache. Just BE, and if you cannot, that reveals everything. MZ tells wonderful stories, though none of it appears genuine to me. There is some figment of 'I' that feels a need to rationalize and justify its existence, go off on tangents, surround itself with imagination to ensure that its falseness feels more real. Entertaining perhaps, but absent of wisdom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sucking Others Into One's Obsession
Barry - based upon your posts here at FFL you seem to be the only one to have been sucked in to, not one but two teachers's obsessions. So you should go ahead and answer it, there might be others whose self-loathing and pain is not obvious as yours - who might follow your bold initiative. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: What *happened* along the Way that convinced you to start seeing the world through someone else's eyes, and believing the things that they do? Do you still *believe* these things, or do you just take it for granted that you do, and never go there and analyze the beliefs themselves? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: No, this is NOT a post about Judy. :-) It's a post about spiritual teachers. I'm of the opinion that one valid way of viewing spiritual teachers is as people who have a strong set of beliefs, or have had some (to them) profound experience, or both, and who were so overshadowed by those beliefs or those experiences that they became obsessed with them, and decided that they are the most important thing in life. Then, not content with just feeling that they are the most important thing in life *for them*, they dedicate their lives to convincing others to make them the most important thing in life for them, too. I would suggest that this generalization is so widespread that it can legitimately be called a truism. If you disagree, name me a spiritual teacher to whom it does not apply. I'll wait. I've always liked William Peter Blatty's film The Ninth Configuration. What it's about (no spoilers) is a charismatic psychiatrist who is transferred to a hospital for severely-traumatized US soldiers. Once there, confronted with what he perceives as the madness around him, he tries his best to draw these soldiers into preferring *his* view of both them and reality over their own, to hopefully cure them of their PTSD. I'm also a fan of books and films in which a charismatic person, sometimes the polar opposite of what we think of as a spiritual teacher and in fact a villain, manages to suck large numbers of people into his or her inner world, and into believing that they are the most important thing in life. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon is not limited to fiction; the rise of Hitler or the Dick Cheney presidency come to mind. It seems to me that there are two ways of sucking another person into one's obsession -- intellectually, and via charisma. The former appeals to people who are predominantly lost in the intellect already, and gravitate to those who appeal to it. Present such people with enough pat answers we have already prepared ideas and concepts, and they'll follow you anywhere, and over time they'll not only come to believe them, they'll forget that they're not even their *own* ideas and concepts. They'll present them to others (trying to suck them into the now-group obsession) as if they were self-evident, or as if they'd always believed them. The latter method of sucking someone into one's obsession is to broadcast it to the world, via charisma. Such teachers bypass the intellect entirely, and count on just being so charismatic that others feel their vibe and want some of it for themselves. Interestingly enough, this approach has a spillover into the intellect in that people who have been flashed out by a charismatic teacher will subsequently believe pretty much anything he or she tells them, whether it makes any sense to the intellect or not. Contradictions don't matter, and inconsistencies such as the teacher not really walking his or her talk don't matter; they'll rationalize both away, because all that really matters is the charisma they feel. The bottom line, however, is that both types of teachers manage to suck other people into their obsessions, and get them over time to believe that they are as important to them as the teachers think they are to them. I'm not suggesting that there is anything particularly wrong or bad about this phenomenon; it's just What Is. But I might suggest every so often taking a mental step back from the ideas, concepts, and experiences that you believe are the most important in life, and doing a little analysis as to where these beliefs *came from*. If they came from a spiritual teacher, aren't you kinda living his or her idea of what is most important in life, and not your own? What *happened* along the Way that convinced you to start seeing the world through someone else's eyes, and believing the things that they do? Do you still *believe* these things, or do you just take it for granted that you do, and never go there and analyze the beliefs themselves? I think that there is a value in such analysis. But I'm not going to try to convince you of the value of such an approach, because that would just be trying to suck you into my obsession. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma
Denise, I will keep presenting my case as long as you and I are around. :-) You do appear to take what you like and leave the restIsn't this what we do in any situation? I think most everyone take what they like and leave the rest in the world and around Amma. We go to a coffee shop and get what we like and leave the rest, I just can't agree with your generalization, sure a higher percentage of them might consider her as an avatar or divine mother but if you polled them there views will dramatically differ as well. Initially some of them (like I did) might be aping just trying to fit in and will change and fine tune their practices. Many of the devotees I met had some far off, spaced out lookIsn't this again true for the outside world. I see spaced out drivers, spaced out colleagues, space out shoppers everywhere. Sure we might remark at their stupidity, laugh at them for a few minutes, but we move on. We don't let these people distract us from our goal or what we need to finish, we don't stop driving, stop working or shopping. When people get confused and start giving their life force over to someone elseAgain is this unique to just spiritual groups? I see how people are caught in a 24x7 rut trapped in the material world expecting happiness from a million dollar house, a million dollar wife, kids and other possessions. Some are caught in worshiping movie stars, sport icons, some in various political, religious ideologies. Is this not handing over life force to someone else? In fact spirituality ultimately IS about not handing over life force to others and people come there for that life purpose, now you can't make fun of someone for their ignorance, most start from square one. But then, in the Hindu tradition, one does subjugate oneself to one's guruWhen around Amma, keep an eye out for the differences between Indians and Westerners. IME all cult-ish behavior is exhibited by Western born, I'm sure the Judeo-Christian conditioning plays a strong part. Regardless of your usage of subjugation Indians are conditioned to separate the inner and outer worlds. Their goal is to subjugate the ego, the shadow, you don't see them handing over all their possessions to the spiritual Guru. Occasionally one does does but they have strong inclination of detachment, most have possessions, family and majority don't relinquish worldly lives. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: You do appear to take what you like and leave the restshe absolutely asserts herself as the divine mother and is uniformly referred to as such by everyone I attended the retreat with. Â Doesn't Amma mean mother? Â Many of the devotees I met had some far off, spaced out look - what is up with that look in the eye? Â I felt like.where are you? was the appropriate question. If you believe that with her grace, life is easier, than so it is. Â For me, grace is a very comforting thing as well. Â If I keep it simple, it works. I appreciate her big picture message of love and compassion - the concept of spreading this message is a good thing and she reaches millions. Â However, her energy appears to desire and elicit worship - the message to pray to Amma was embedded in all aspects of the retreat. But then, in the Hindu tradition, one does subjugate oneself to one's guru. Â I was just raised without an emotional attachment to any religion - it isn't a natural thing for me to worship a guruor Jesus either for that matter. Â I have never believed that he was God, yet I do believe he was also a very very special person with a similar message of love and compassion (that was corrupted through interpretation). Â When people get confused and start giving their life force over to someone elsedangerous things can happen. --- On Mon, 7/25/11, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: From: Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, July 25, 2011, 12:24 AM I don't consider Amma as an avatar or divine mother, IMO most who do are just engaging in an intellectual concept. Not that there's anything wrong with it, since the very faith, trust transforms. However IME she is definitely a Satguru and a very very rare and a special person, not considering her as an avatar or divine mother is not at all a handicap by any means. The key is not outside of you, it's just that with her grace it so much easier.
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular argument or not, she will within a very few days attempt to start another one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and decide for yourself. I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely bother to read any of it because by this time I've learned that I can tell what is going to be said in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely bothers to interact with her one-on-one because he's seen the movie before, and know that doing so will inevitably devolve into a long waste of time ended by her declaring victory. Maybe Curtis -- saint that he is to still be willing to talk with her at all -- will do the same, and limit himself to the first two exchanges in any post in which she hides her true intent and hasn't managed to turn it into a Bash Curtis Session again. If so, WHAT WILL SHE DO? What will her posse do? My suspicion is that they'll go a little batshit crazy and turn up the OBSESSION dial to 11, and over the next few weeks redouble their efforts to start all the bickering up again. But only time will tell. I've made my prediction. Now it's up to the instigator herself -- and you, as one of her co-dependents -- to see what you're going to do. If we ignore you, will you have the strength of character to do the same with us? Your call. Over and out...
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
Damn dude, when does your vacation end? You need a good boot in the pants and some decaf. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular argument or not, she will within a very few days attempt to start another one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and decide for yourself. I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely bother to read any of it because by this time I've learned that I can tell what is going to be said in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely bothers to interact with her one-on-one because he's seen the movie before, and know that doing so will inevitably devolve into a long waste of time ended by her declaring victory. Maybe Curtis -- saint that he is to still be willing to talk with her at all -- will do the same, and limit himself to the first two exchanges in any post in which she hides her true intent and hasn't managed to turn it into a Bash Curtis Session again. If so, WHAT WILL SHE DO? What will her posse do? My suspicion is that they'll go a little batshit crazy and turn up the OBSESSION dial to 11, and over the next few weeks redouble their efforts to start all the bickering up again. But only time will tell. I've made my prediction. Now it's up to the instigator herself -- and you, as one of her co-dependents -- to see what you're going to do. If we ignore you, will you have the strength of character to do the same with us? Your call. Over and out...
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Damn dude, when does your vacation end? You need a good boot in the pants and some decaf. Like the events you continue to obsess on and carry a grudge over, Jim, my vacation ended long ago. Do you remember the famous Zen story about the two monks whose order prohibited contact with women? Approaching a river, one noticed a woman unable to get across, so he offered to give her a piggyback ride over on his back. They got to the other side, the woman thanked him, and went her way. The two monks walked on in silence, but the other monk, the one who had not helped the woman across the river, was quietly simmering inside. He finally couldn't control himself any more and said angrily, How could you have dishonored your vows like that, to touch a woman?! The other monk said, Put her down. I did, back at the river. Put the vacation thing down, dude. You might also re-read the post you're replying to and consider it a challenge to you, too. Your call. Over and out... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular argument or not, she will within a very few days attempt to start another one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and decide for yourself. I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely bother to read any of it because by this time I've learned that I can tell what is going to be said in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely bothers to interact with her one-on-one because he's seen the movie before, and know that doing so will inevitably devolve into a long waste of time ended by her declaring victory. Maybe Curtis -- saint that he is to still be willing to talk with her at all -- will do the same, and limit himself to the first two exchanges in any post in which she hides her true intent and hasn't managed to turn it into a Bash Curtis Session again. If so, WHAT WILL SHE DO? What will her posse do? My suspicion is that they'll go a little batshit
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
Abiding and un-abiding unity as Varying apertures in experience. Great thread here. Last month Rick Archer put up some audio files of Adyashanti here acknowledging and talking about this in the way that Adyashanti teaches. Similarly I noticed this thread too coming up in an old hymnal that I sing out of. In 500 pages of text songs of all kinds a few are deep and yearn in this theme of variability, the 'Knowledge come' and 'knowledge' lost state, as we might say. As an old Christian mystical theme describing this experience its description can come along under the term, 'acedia'. I have roped some of these hymns together in to a playlist. Rory, I should bet the old minister inside you would appreciate where this sound comes from. For singing, here is a hymn playlist that I pulled together on the subject: https://sites.google.com/site/shapenotesingingplaylists/acedia-and-shape-note-singing Sample and hear a group of some of us old and conservative Fairfield meditators singing this music at: http://fairfolk.org/ Love, -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip BTW, MMY definitely said that a test of Unity is if you can perform any and all of the sidhis to perfection. Robin and every other person proclaiming themselves in Unity on this forum rejects this claim (I presume because they can't pass the test). snip The question must be asked whether the siddhi requirement mentioned by Maharishi is true or false. No one in the TMO now and in the past appears to have demonstrated perfection in this; and in fact, it would seem that it might not be possible to detect the effect of all the siddhis. Maharishi did not appear to have given any demonstration of this requirement. Considering these powers are considered trivial or even a danger in some traditions, what are we to think? I think we're missing something that would shed a different light on it--full context, exact words? I don't think it means what we're assuming it means. I suspect it was one of his tricky statements like Reincarnation is for the ignorant. One could interpret that statement to mean that only ignorant (as in uneducated) people believe in reincarnation, but that was clearly not what he meant by it. I think something similar is involved with the unity consciousness statement, except it's most likely a lot more complicated. I have always thought that some of Maharishi's off-the-cuff statements were the most interesting, like 'in unity consciousness, nothing ever happened' (which he said when talking to the Russian born, naturalised Begian chemist/physicist Ilya Prigogine). As one's spiritual experience develops, statements take on a less complicated sense, and logic and belief at some point go out the window. But logic is still necessary when one wishes to construct a reasoned argument. How one's words relate to one's experience has to be constructed anew, as if one had never known anything before, even though of course, one remembers stuff. Full context is the entirety of existence, and when one is making a reasoned argument, this expanse can never be fully worked in. Unlike reasoned arguments in quantum mechanics, which require a high degree of precision, spiritual arguments are very sloppy. Exact quotations may not be possible because they are translated from various traditions, or special words are used that come from those traditions whose meaning may not be entirely clear. Another factor is each person has a context of understanding (in TMO language this would include 'knowledge is different in different states of consciousness'), and on the level of individual human interaction, no one seems to share a completely common world view. The level of precision is variable. If I want to boil water, the exact position of a pan of water on a stove is not critical as long as the pan is more or less on or over the burner, nor is the temperature setting, as long as it is higher than a certain amount. If I use a quotation, it has a certain significance for me, and I use it that way. I don't know what others see in it, although I can have a general idea sometimes. If the quotation is actually a mis-statement, even then, I take it the way I understand it; historically, it is incorrect, but in the context of the argument, it might be of benefit, if its pedigree is not germane to the sense and logic of the argument. It still has a significance for me. Quite often I experience something I say to someone verbally is taken in a very different way than I understood it myself, and often there is no way to bridge that gap. I quite often
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western Civilizationexcept after LSD and the invasion of the alien gods of the East, and MMYbecause it dose not fit into the philosophy, the art, the science, the music, the psychology, the literature, the history, the personal experience of each individual inside the Western Tradition. Reincarnation got prestige from Plato, but after that, starting with Aristotle, and going through everyone after that (name one prominent philosopher or thinker in the West who has everbefore the 1960's that ismade reincarnation the central position it has always assumed in the religion of the East). I think this is quite wrong. The excluson of Plato is just ad hoc. (All western philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato. - Alfred North Whitehead). And the Platonists certainly did not end at Plato. It is surely much, much harder to find support for RC's grand Christian/Summa Theological scheme amongst western heavyweights than it is for reincarnation. If there is a consensus though it is probably for neither (Hume, Spinoza, Russell for example). Not that a consensus of western philosophers amounts epistemically to anything more than a hill of beans (as I'm sure, without exception, they would all admit). But what about Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence'? Or better, Schopenhauer? Wagner (no lightweight) was deeply under the influence: Wagner was especially attracted to the story's secondary theme of reincarnation as a vehicle for his compositional technique of Emotional Reminiscence, usually referred to by the term 'leitmotiv'. Only music, he said, can convey the mysteries of reincarnation. Die Sieger was never developed beyond a sketch but some of its ideas were used again in Parsifal, and Prakriti [the outcast maiden] reappeared (transformed) as Kundry. Wagner's fascination with Buddhism intensified as the years went by and coloured his general philosophy. It is seen most vividly in Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde (where, for example, one finds a correlation between Truth, Nirvana and Night) but there are also traces in Der Ring des Nibelungen. In 1856, the same year as Die Sieger, Wagner drafted a Buddhist ending for the Ring, with Brünnhilde achieving enlightenment (becoming a Buddha herself) and attaining Nirvana. That ending was subsequently replaced by the present one http://www.monsalvat.no/exegesis.htm And are we to ignore the American Transcendentalists Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson? http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western Civilizationexcept after LSD and the invasion of the alien gods of the East, and MMYbecause it dose not fit into the philosophy, the art, the science, the music, the psychology, the literature, the history, the personal experience of each individual inside the Western Tradition. I don't read Robin's posts, and so noticed this only because PaliGap (whose posts I do read) replied to it. I have to point out that what Robin says above is not true. Belief in reincarnation in the West in fact predates Christianity, having been part of the Dualist philos- ophy that later gave rise to Gnosticism, Catharism, the Bogomils and many of the Magdalene cults. That reincarnation was eradicated from the Catholic dogma the same way (and at the same time) that they eradicated groups like the Cathars by practicing genocide on them does not mean that reincarnation was never popular, or widely believed in. One the main reasons that the Catholic Church created two Crusades and invented the Inquisition to eradicate the Cathars is that they were gaining converts at a remarkable rate, and were more numerous in parts of Europe than Catholics. So they killed off the competition by killing hundreds of thousands of their fellow Christians. Robin has a tendency to make up his own history. I'm suggesting -- as is PaliGap -- that he might want to consider reading some. Reincarnation got prestige from Plato, but after that, starting with Aristotle, and going through everyone after that (name one prominent philosopher or thinker in the West who has everbefore the 1960's that ismade reincarnation the central position it has always assumed in the religion of the East). I think this is quite wrong. The excluson of Plato is just ad hoc. (All western philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato. - Alfred North Whitehead). And the Platonists certainly did not end at Plato. It is surely much, much harder to find support for RC's grand Christian/Summa Theological scheme amongst western heavyweights than it is for reincarnation. If there is a consensus though it is probably for neither (Hume, Spinoza, Russell for example). Not that a consensus of western philosophers amounts epistemically to anything more than a hill of beans (as I'm sure, without exception, they would all admit). But what about Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence'? Or better, Schopenhauer? Wagner (no lightweight) was deeply under the influence: Wagner was especially attracted to the story's secondary theme of reincarnation as a vehicle for his compositional technique of Emotional Reminiscence, usually referred to by the term 'leitmotiv'. Only music, he said, can convey the mysteries of reincarnation. Die Sieger was never developed beyond a sketch but some of its ideas were used again in Parsifal, and Prakriti [the outcast maiden] reappeared (transformed) as Kundry. Wagner's fascination with Buddhism intensified as the years went by and coloured his general philosophy. It is seen most vividly in Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde (where, for example, one finds a correlation between Truth, Nirvana and Night) but there are also traces in Der Ring des Nibelungen. In 1856, the same year as Die Sieger, Wagner drafted a Buddhist ending for the Ring, with Brünnhilde achieving enlightenment (becoming a Buddha herself) and attaining Nirvana. That ending was subsequently replaced by the present one http://www.monsalvat.no/exegesis.htm And are we to ignore the American Transcendentalists Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson? http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: How do you feel about those traditions that eschew special powers as an impediment to spiritual progress? For example in Yoga Vasistha there is the following The Holy Shankaracharya Order - the tradition Mahesh claimed authorization from - is one such tradition. The standard text in enlightenment in that trad. not only emphatically states siddhis are impediments to enlightenment, actually goes through Patanjali step by step and side-steps all the parts related to siddhis and uses numerous quotes, like the ones you shared, to drive home this fact of awakening. Great points X., thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: Shri Ramakrishna has stated that a man cannot realise God if he possesses even one of the eight occult powers. He quoted Lord Krishna teaching Arjuna Friend, if you want to realise Me, you will not succeed if you have even one of the eight occult powers. This is the truth. Occult power is sure to beget pride and pride makes one forget God. And maketh thee post endlessly to internet chat groups: ah, the bliss, my yogic 'flying, my channeling. There's actually a diversion that takes place at the subtle level that damns sidhi practitioners from enlightenment for many lifetimes. It sets them on a downward course that will takes lifetimes to recover from IME. In that sense, the domes are like gateways to hell, like something out of an H.R. Giger film. When I took an extremely psychic friend along to South Fallsburg, she was afraid to leave the car when she saw what psychic vampirism had done to the Purushas. She said their energetic systems resembled people in advanced stages of cancer or some fatal disease.
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
Glad to hear it Barry, though I was also referring to your apparent vacation from your Self. As to whatever challenge you are posing to me, I am perfectly happy with things as they are, until they change, in which case that is fine too. What's the problem? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Damn dude, when does your vacation end? You need a good boot in the pants and some decaf. Like the events you continue to obsess on and carry a grudge over, Jim, my vacation ended long ago. Do you remember the famous Zen story about the two monks whose order prohibited contact with women? Approaching a river, one noticed a woman unable to get across, so he offered to give her a piggyback ride over on his back. They got to the other side, the woman thanked him, and went her way. The two monks walked on in silence, but the other monk, the one who had not helped the woman across the river, was quietly simmering inside. He finally couldn't control himself any more and said angrily, How could you have dishonored your vows like that, to touch a woman?! The other monk said, Put her down. I did, back at the river. Put the vacation thing down, dude. You might also re-read the post you're replying to and consider it a challenge to you, too. Your call. Over and out... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular argument or not, she will within a very few days attempt to start another one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and decide for yourself. I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely bother to read any of it because by this time I've learned that I can tell what is going to be said in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely bothers to interact with her one-on-one because he's seen the movie before, and know that doing so will inevitably
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
You are so full of shit Vaj. You sound like a wimpy little kid who can't play with the big kids, and so makes up all kinds of stories to his mom. You supposedly follow Buddhist thought, but you come across as the most superficial, frustrated fundamentalist Christian. You remain terrified of sidhis and other elements of life that you clearly don't understand and have never integrated, preferring instead to interpret scripture to serve your stunted understanding and support your deepest fears. What Ramakrishna is clearly talking about is getting wrapped up in the sidhis, much as you get wrapped up in your psuedo-intellectual rolls of toilet papered though. Anything is an impediment to liberation when treated this way, and prevents us from directly apprehending Brahman. You are like blind beggar hollering that sight is bad. You oughta remember what the Middle Way is, and stop crowing like the bird brain you have become. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:10 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: Shri Ramakrishna has stated that a man cannot realise God if he possesses even one of the eight occult powers. He quoted Lord Krishna teaching Arjuna Friend, if you want to realise Me, you will not succeed if you have even one of the eight occult powers. This is the truth. Occult power is sure to beget pride and pride makes one forget God. And maketh thee post endlessly to internet chat groups: ah, the bliss, my yogic 'flying, my channeling. There's actually a diversion that takes place at the subtle level that damns sidhi practitioners from enlightenment for many lifetimes. It sets them on a downward course that will takes lifetimes to recover from IME. In that sense, the domes are like gateways to hell, like something out of an H.R. Giger film. When I took an extremely psychic friend along to South Fallsburg, she was afraid to leave the car when she saw what psychic vampirism had done to the Purushas. She said their energetic systems resembled people in advanced stages of cancer or some fatal disease.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:27 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Robin has a tendency to make up his own history. I'm suggesting -- as is PaliGap -- that he might want to consider reading some. And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (גלגולים), or the cycles (of souls). A trend I see in MZ's talks is that he left the delusions he gained through Mahesh and TM-TMSP and simply began projecting those delusions onto another belief system. Actually the last time I saw MZ was just after his conversion to Roman Catholicism, and I found it bizarre then. But then of course my family was persecuted for centuries by the Catholic church, that's why we came here. So I find much having to do with Saint Peter's Thieves quite disturbing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
The key word is story. As far as I can tell, all living things attempt to continuously solve problems, like a spider spinning a web to increase its capability to feed itself, or a cheetah sprinting at 70 mph for the same purpose. For us humans, problem solving takes on another dimension, in that we like to solve problems not just for food and shelter, but to explain ourselves to ourselves. Given that we have the ability to directly apprehend the Infinite, a limited story of ourselves or others told by the intellect to satisfy the heart will never be absolutely true, or absolutely satisfying. Towards that end though, much as RC/MZ has done, some of us strive mightily to build a towering intellectual edifice that we can easily reference and therefore solve the problem of our feelings about ourselves or something we perceive to be external. We attempt to solve all of our problems with one or many grand stories. However, the universe within us will never accept any story as the the ultimate truth, and so constantly, innocently changes our feelings about ourselves and the world we create in order to give the house of cards we have built a gentle push from time to time and have us begin anew. Once we begin to live the impermanence of any story (including too, the intellectual fixation that there are no stories, aka Turq) we are on our way to really understanding ourselves and living our universal nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: I have never heard that MMY declared Robin to be fully enlightened with no more growth possible. only that his experiences were sufficiently valid to have him describe them to other TM teachers. Thanks for the clarification Lawson, makes sense to me. However Robin's story seems to be much more dramatic and just doesn't seem to add up. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception. I have never heard that MMY declared Robin to be fully enlightened with no more growth possible. only that his experiences were sufficiently valid to have him describe them to other TM teachers. Not THAT subtle a distinction, you know? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Do you still do TM? No. I sit and be with whatever arises. Usually, after a while, it all subsides and I am in some form of samadhi. Usually, the time being with what's arising exceeds the time in samadhi. Mark, that is honest. As I survey around here that is what a lot of old meditators say and do. They've graduated in a sense back to something else that is effortless, transcendental and meditating. Most still see themselves as being 'meditators'. Most here are not doing the TM-siddhis actively. Lately a lot of people have gone through and rotated off of the current Invincible America Course noting the time doing the TM-siddhis is too long and boring. So they've reverted back to simply meditating. This actually is an un-stated community problem that the TB'ers left administrating inside have on their hands in making the TM-siddhis their flag-ship. Most folks around here no longer regularly practice the siddhis as their meditation. Most just are not vested in the siddhis anymore. In trend over the years, Meditators here mostly have left the siddhis in storage and only occassionally get them out. The 'TM-siddhis' movement has mostly gone on as meditators. Witness that there really are just a very few hundreds doing the 'siddhis' in the domes now. As a meditating movement this is basically the size of what the TM-movement is facilitating now as a meditating movement and what it is down to now. As I ask around most are not doing the siddhis as their meditation practice but say when asked that they would go up there for a group meditation if it were open. That, yes they are still meditators and practice. The movement as it is has long since abdicated the simple meditator promoting the siddhis the TM flag-ship three and almost four decades ago. The conservatives in charge now evidently are determined to go down with their ship rather than accomodate a course. To them it is all about the siddhis. To meditators in the larger community it evidently is about something else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:27 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Robin has a tendency to make up his own history. I'm suggesting -- as is PaliGap -- that he might want to consider reading some. And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (×'××'××××), or the cycles (of souls). A trend I see in MZ's talks is that he left the delusions he gained through Mahesh and TM-TMSP and simply began projecting those delusions onto another belief system. Actually the last time I saw MZ was just after his conversion to Roman Catholicism, and I found it bizarre then. But then of course my family was persecuted for centuries by the Catholic church, that's why we came here. So I find much having to do with Saint Peter's Thieves quite disturbing. The RC/Catholicism story reminds me of Bernadette Roberts, who had a nondual awakening and then proceeded to box herself back into her old Catholic perspective. It weirds me out that people could be blessed with a taste of nondual freedom and then claw themselves back into a religious theme decorated prison cell. I asked Tom T about it, and he said some people are addicted to being an I/me story.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Dear PaliGap, I probably should be more careful before making an historical argument against a Western consensus for belief in reincarnation. It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a propositionweaker, for instance, inside the context of how a child senses who he is and what the world is. I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case, the evidence for it would be undeniable, and the idea of there *not* being such a thing as reincarnation would have the same status (as a belief) that reincarnation has hadin the Westsince Christ. Although (as I point out) after the 1960's there is a much more open attitude among those not dogmatically committed to Christianity that reincarnation might be true. Of course I have no way of demonstrating the metaphysical falseness of reincarnation; after all, I lived with the presumption of the truth of reincarnation for 20 years. But what has caused me *not* to believe in reincarnation, and how I feel now in comparison to how I felt when I believed in reincarnation, makes a strong argument (for me at least) for the conviction that this idea represents a failure to intuit truthfully the design of God's creation. I don't thinkjust spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturallywe live our lives as if thisreincarnationmust be true. Indeed it seems to me that in a fundamental way we demonstrate in everything we do consciously that we came into existence at the moment of conception, and that before this, we literally did not exist (except for being a thought inside the Creator from the beginning). Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body. If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has determined the very quality and nature of our soul. The idea of reincarnation is mystically irresistible, but as a normative belief, it seems, for me at least, to be a very esoteric and recondite idea. But who knows, PaliGap, you might be Plato, and I, Aquinas: you are here to confront me with God's truth that there is such a thing as reincarnation, whereas I am here to finally realize what a dream I was in when I believed, under the inspiration of Christ, that reincarnation was false. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western Civilizationexcept after LSD and the invasion of the alien gods of the East, and MMYbecause it dose not fit into the philosophy, the art, the science, the music, the psychology, the literature, the history, the personal experience of each individual inside the Western Tradition. Reincarnation got prestige from Plato, but after that, starting with Aristotle, and going through everyone after that (name one prominent philosopher or thinker in the West who has everbefore the 1960's that ismade reincarnation the central position it has always assumed in the religion of the East). I think this is quite wrong. The excluson of Plato is just ad hoc. (All western philosophy consists of footnotes to Plato. - Alfred North Whitehead). And the Platonists certainly did not end at Plato. It is surely much, much harder to find support for RC's grand Christian/Summa Theological scheme amongst western heavyweights than it is for reincarnation. If there is a consensus though it is probably for neither (Hume, Spinoza, Russell for example). Not that a consensus of western philosophers amounts epistemically to anything more than a hill of beans (as I'm sure, without exception, they would all admit). But what about Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence'? Or better, Schopenhauer? Wagner (no lightweight) was deeply under the influence: Wagner was especially attracted to the story's secondary theme of reincarnation as a vehicle for his compositional technique of Emotional Reminiscence, usually referred to by the term 'leitmotiv'. Only music, he said, can convey the mysteries of reincarnation. Die Sieger was never developed beyond a sketch but some of its ideas were used again in Parsifal, and Prakriti
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
Shri Ramakrishna has stated that a man cannot realise God if he possesses even one of the eight occult powers... whynotnow: You remain terrified of sidhis and other elements of life that you clearly don't understand and have never integrated, preferring instead to interpret scripture to serve your stunted understanding and support your deepest fears... Everyone knows that the historical Buddha had the occult power to see all his past and future lives, in an instant, an event which is called the 'Buddha's Great Enlightenment' (mahanirvana). According to the Buddhist scriptures, the historical Buddha used to 'hover' or levitate over Sravasti for long periods of time. Dead Tibetans dwell in the 'Bardo', according to Uncle Tantra, a Buddhist of some repute. How people get into the Bardo is by means of a magical incantation, according to another Tantric Buddhist, Vajradhatu. Apparently several postwar writers on the Occult have asserted that Buddhism and the legend of Shambhala and the magical rite Kalachakra played a role in the German-Tibetan official contact. Go figure. 'The Nazi Connection with Shambhala and Tibet' By Alexander Berzin http://tinyurl.com/33v4ch 'Occult Tibet' Secret Practices of Himalayan Magic By J. H. Brennan Llewellyn, 2002 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' Or The After-Death Experiences on the Bardo By W.Y. Evans-Wentz Oxford, 2000 'Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines' Or Seven Books of Wisdom of the Great Path By W.Y. Evans-Wentz Oxford, 2000
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:19 AM, maskedzebra wrote: I probably should be more careful before making an historical argument against a Western consensus for belief in reincarnation. It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Then you might want to clip the Sermon on the Mount out of whatever version of the New Testament you're using.
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. Not only a sin, but a fatal character flaw? You lost track of your rhetoric here again, dude. Should be, Not only a fatal character flaw, but a sin. I don't think anybody here sees disagreement this way in any case. (Well, if you take out the sin part, Barry does.) I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. Says Barry, inadvertently revealing that he read the post in which I pointed this out. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Which is why Barry does it so often, I guess. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, which would, of course, be me... The main reason Barry doesn't use my name is so nobody can do a Yahoo search on it to determine how many of his posts are devoted to demonizing me. told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. Now, this is funny. The dude who so insistently boasts about how he ignores me actually goes to the trouble to *count the words and lines in one of my posts*. And then, of course, wildly inflates his count by including all the quotes. In fact, I wrote 164 words and 908 lines--and that was in response to *three different posts*. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. Hard to figure how I could *both* want to have the last word *and* want to lure Curtis back into the argument to keep it going. Make up your mind, Barry. You really would do well to reread your posts before sending them so you don't make silly errors like this. Your off-the-cuff thinking isn't clear enough to keep track of what you're saying as you write; you need to go back and check when you're finished. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? As I said in a previous post: I believe Curtis when he says he isn't going to respond. That's been his habit, after all, for quite a while, bailing when he finds himself in a corner. I see no reason to expect otherwise. Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? IOW, the only way I can disprove Barry's prediction is to never address a post to Curtis again. My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. Good grief. What I tend to snip from your posts about me is the stuff you've said over and over and over again. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular argument or not, she will within a very few days attempt to start another one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Well, for sure, I'm not going to refrain from addressing Curtis just to falsify Barry's prediction. If he says something I want to comment on, of course I'll do so. Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and decide for yourself. I
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: snip There's actually a diversion that takes place at the subtle level that damns sidhi practitioners from enlightenment for many lifetimes. It sets them on a downward course that will takes lifetimes to recover from IME. In that sense, the domes are like gateways to hell, like something out of an H.R. Giger film. The variation in the standards for batshit crazy on this forum is fascinating. (Note, by the way, the IME--in my experience--in Vaj's account. How many lifetimes ya got to go, Vaj, before you're recovered?)
[FairfieldLife] Caucasians can't compete with Asians?
Caucasians (in this case Finns) can't seem to be able to compete with Asians (South-Koreans)... http://www.knowyourmobile.com/comparisons/969352/nokia_n9_vs_samsung_galaxy_s2.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Very spooky images, thanks for the back story on the song. It isn't that I feel stalked but there is a definite I am an excellent driver, I am an excellent driver Rainman quality to the exchanges. There is something off about it all. Combined with the ill-wishing it makes for a creepy combo. Rainman is too benevolent. Having endured it myself for 17 years, I'm gonna go with creepy. Just for the record, for Barry to pose as the *victim* in our encounters goes way beyond creepy. It's either a humongous, utterly shameless lie, or a really serious delusion. He attacked me gratuitously on a regular basis during our years on alt.m.t; he attacked me on FFL *before I joined it*, before had any idea that I *would* join it. And once I did join it, he continued attacking me here on a regular basis, either directly or indirectly. He's also followed me to several other forums for the purpose of attacking me--and has then had the incredible chutzpah to pretend I've stalked *him*. Unless, as I suggested, his mind has so deteriorated that he really believes what he says.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western Civilization... turquoiseb Belief in reincarnation in the West in fact predates Christianity... Reincarnation or metempsychosis probably originated with the Indian sramana tradition, which is non-Vedic in origin, and may be an idea that is original to the historical Buddha (563 BCE). This 'rebirth' notion appears in Indian literature with the Vedanta, along with the associated concepts of karma, samsara and moksha, and later with Patanjali. The reincarnation theory got to Europe via the Silk Road, and was adopted there by the Druids and the Gnostics, then the Orphics, Sethians, Valentinians, Manichaeians, Bogomils, Cathars, and then the Rosicrucians, but much later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip There's actually a diversion that takes place at the subtle level that damns sidhi practitioners from enlightenment for many lifetimes. It sets them on a downward course that will takes lifetimes to recover from IME. In that sense, the domes are like gateways to hell, like something out of an H.R. Giger film. The variation in the standards for batshit crazy on this forum is fascinating. (Note, by the way, the IME--in my experience--in Vaj's account. How many lifetimes ya got to go, Vaj, before you're recovered?) IME can also refer to the less commonly used in my estimation. From the context, I assumed estimation rather than experience, but being FFL, ya never know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: The RC/Catholicism story reminds me of Bernadette Roberts, who had a nondual awakening and then proceeded to box herself back into her old Catholic perspective. It weirds me out that people could be blessed with a taste of nondual freedom and then claw themselves back into a religious theme decorated prison cell. I asked Tom T about it, and he said some people are addicted to being an I/me story. In Tibetan Buddhism we'd call this falling into accepting and rejecting. Once the embodied non-conventional experience of totality is lost, one falls back into polarities of accepting things that enhance ego and rejecting those that no longer do. This experience can actually be quite painful physically. For Judaeo-Christians I can't help but think of Pierce Pettis' song title Trying to Stand in a Fallen World. The fallen world story is not the best myth for embracing totality, in fact it's a myth of separateness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin, It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. That's fine Robin - but our intuitions differ. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Again our intuitions differ. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a propositionweaker, for instance, inside the context of how a child senses who he is and what the world is. Well no belief about death is EVER going to make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way, no? And again our intuitions differ. But, and here's what I want to get at, you seem in your writing to hint at a curious theory of knowing. The best sense I can make of it is what makes sense to RC (at some sort of intuitive level) is what is True. Just look at the use of these words in your paragraph above: natural, implicit sense, weak. I feel those are the joists that take the entire load of your epistemology. I have to say, I don't think they are fit for purpose. I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case, the evidence for it would be undeniable, You mean it would be self-evident? To whose intuition, yours or mine? ... I don't think just spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturally we live our lives as if thisreincarnationmust be true. And again our intuitions differ. Exactly why does spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturally play a role here? (actually I couldn't disagree more in any case. I find reincarnation a completely *natural* idea). Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body. If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has determined the very quality and nature of our soul. I can't say I'm impressed with this. That the soul is the form of the body comes from Aristotle rather than revelation I'd suggest. You (Aquinas) appear to be saying: The body determines the soul, therefore a different body would be a different soul. So reincarnation *in a different body* is impossible (as *you* would be a different individual). Well the obvious question is: sez who? But are you not aware that even during your present lifetime not one part of your body stays the same? The body of RC at age 3 is not the same body as the body of RC many decades later (or so we are told)? Do you deny your *reincarnation* from little RC to big RC? If matter determines individuality, how many RCs have there been in this one *incarnation* to date? I wonder if you saw the post by Yifu on the Ship of Theseus? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282718 Or maybe I have misunderstood your point. Incidentally, I see Aquinas says: In the resurrection, however, both the numerically same soul will come back again, since it is incorruptible, and this numerically same body restored by divine power from the same dust into which it had disintegrated; and thus will the numerically same man rise again. Now if God can take the same dust and resurrect you, why couldn't he take the same dust and reincarnate you?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: IME can also refer to the less commonly used in my estimation. From the context, I assumed estimation rather than experience, but being FFL, ya never know. Yes, you're correct. I thought of putting IMEst, but it seemed clumsy and too prone association with Est seminars.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
How do you feel about those traditions that eschew special powers as an impediment to spiritual progress? Vaj: The Holy Shankaracharya Order - the tradition Mahesh claimed authorization from - is one such tradition. The standard text in enlightenment in that trad. not only emphatically states siddhis are impediments to enlightenment... The primary scripture of the Shankaracharya Tradition is the 'Soundarya Lahari', which was composed by the Adi Shankara. The Saunda contains all the TM bija mantras used by all the Saraswati Sannyasins. The Saunda is the main and most important tantra in the Shankara Saraswati Order and in the Sri Vidya sect of Vedanta, according to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri Matha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya It has already been established that the MMY's teaching is derived from Gaudpapada, the founder of the Advaita Tradition in South Asia, hence to Shankara, and down to the guru of SBS, Swami Krishnanand Saraswati of Sringeri. Subject: So Kindly You Say! Updated From: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation, alt.yoga Date: December 2, 200 http://tinyurl.com/39ogpoa SBS's succussor, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati of Jotirmath, is the only surviving direct desciple of SBS in the guru parampara, and Vasudevanand fully supports MMY's TM movement. Subject: Re: Guru Dev and Sri Vidya From: James Duffy Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: April 28, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2drn7gp Soundarya Lahari: Verses 1 - 41 describe the mystical experience of the union of Shiva and Shakti. In fact, it opens with the assertion that Only when Shiva is united with Shakti does he have the power to create... Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundarya_Lahari
[FairfieldLife] What I'm against
Having done What I'm for recently, I figure it's only fair to spend some time rapping about what I'm uh...less for. I'm against a trend I see in long-term spiritual seekers to focus on the things that they're against, while rarely spending any time talking about the things they're for. I've come to view this (and YMMV, and that's OK) as a kind of indulgence, or spiritual laziness. It's EASY to defend one's chosen path or belief system. It's not nearly as easy to present a case for that path or belief system that appeals to other sentient beings, and might encourage them to investigate it. This rap was not inspired by any particular post or posters on FFL, although the trend I'm dealing with certainly appears here. Instead it was inspired by something that came up on the Rama-oriented forum that's recently been created on Facebook. One former student, although often a veritable font of positive contributions, backslid recently and tried to bring up a golden oldie mindset that IMO is more moldy than goldie. He started a thread that brought up the Bad Old Days, when Rama was being pursued by CAN and other anti-cult groups. It's not that this period did not exist. I was there. I saw friends kidnapped and dragged to a crappy motel room and brainwashed for days by deprogrammers, who their parents paid $10,000 to do. I saw with my own eyes blacklists distributed by CAN employees to pretty much every IT employer in the NYC area, listing all of the names of people studying with Rama and warning potential employers that they were dangerous cultists, who if hired would probably try to sabotage their systems or steal from them. I provided testimony in trials against deprogrammers, and saw some of them convicted. So these times existed, but IMO they're so Been There Done That. There is no need to dredge them back up again, especially because of the issue of what I call paranoid self-importance. NOTHING works better to cohere a group of TBs, no matter what the belief or faith, than persecution. If a teacher or religion can convince their followers that they're being persecuted -- because of their beliefs -- any doubts these TBs might ever have had fly out the window and are replaced by Onward Christian Soldiers battle fervor. Sad to say, that is the mindset Rama encouraged in us. We were told to view CAN and its affiliated organizations as the enemy, with us as the poor, persecuted minority. A *lot* of people -- sadly, myself included -- bought this explanation hook, line and sinker. WHY? Because it made us feel more self-important, dummy. NOTHING makes a seeker feel more self-important and like the center of the universe than someone attacking them for their beliefs. But in retrospect, it's a lazy approach to critical challenges of one's beliefs or path, and IMO a debilitating one. The more self-importance you cultivate, the more that ever-expanding self stands as an obstacle to the realization of Self. IMNSHO, some people really need to get over their bad self. It's REALLY not all that important. As Ani DiFranco says so well in her song Everest, Take a step back, put on a wider lens, and view yourself with some perspective. You are just one small frog in one small pond on one insignificant planet circling an unregarded sun in the uncharted backwaters of the universe. No group -- organized or unorganized, unpaid or paid (as Nabby keeps suggesting), malicious or not -- is trying to get you. You really don't have to keep acting as if they are. To do so IMO fuels self-importance, and as far as I can tell after many years walking the spiritual path, some of them possibly spent walking the other way, strengthening self rather than preferring Self, that other way may not lead you where you think it will. What you focus on you become. What I'm against is folks falling into the self-importance rut and *never noticing* that the majority of their posts have turned into against, while very few -- in some cases none -- of their posts ever deal with the things they're for. It's not that I say this from any sense of superiority; I have SO been there done that with that mindset. That inspires in me compassion, because I know from experience how easy it is to slip into the against mindset. Despite what Maharishi says, I am not convinced that following the easy path is always following the spiritual path. YMMV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMXuHke5jZQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMXuHke5jZQ
[FairfieldLife] More for
The Subject line, for those who might have been tempted to read it aloud to themselves, is not a play on MoFo. That's an acronym for a longer phrase describing guys who may have a tad too much Oediphus in their personalities. It's merely a description of me sitting down in yet another cafe and pounding out yet another rap, this time trying to focus more on the things I'm for than I do on the things I'm against. It's tough. I am as much a victim of the self-importance mindset I railed against in my previous post as anyone else. For far too many years I've spend more of my Nettime against things than I have for things. As I suggested in that rap, it's easy. So in this rap I'm going to try to buck the easy path and go for the path of -- Warning: TM TBs may want to hit Next now, because I'm about to use the E word -- effort. One of the things I'm for IS, in fact, effort. I think it accomplishes things that Take it easy, take it as it comes does not. For example, mindfulness requires a tiny bit of effort. So does TM, despite what TBs might claim, but I'll give them that mindfulness may require a bit more effort than TM. Especially out of meditation and in activity, where the rubber meets the road. I'm for trying to occasionally self-monitor, and when you find that the self has slipped into a lower mindstate, one involving outrage or anger or a feeling of defensiveness or strong attachment, coming back to more balanced mindstates, just as easily as one comes back to the mantra in TM. To do so doth not require a whole *lot* of effort. You just learn to recognize when the emotions are in control and you are not, and reverse the flow. Shift polarity and, instead of focusing on the minus, refocus on the plus. It can make all the difference in a conversation, and in a life. After all my years walking a spiritual path, I find that there are very few things that I can recommend to newbs on that path. I wish that there were more. But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1SIUGRxRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1SIUGRxRM
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip There's actually a diversion that takes place at the subtle level that damns sidhi practitioners from enlightenment for many lifetimes. It sets them on a downward course that will takes lifetimes to recover from IME. In that sense, the domes are like gateways to hell, like something out of an H.R. Giger film. The variation in the standards for batshit crazy on this forum is fascinating. (Note, by the way, the IME--in my experience--in Vaj's account. How many lifetimes ya got to go, Vaj, before you're recovered?) IME can also refer to the less commonly used in my estimation. From the context, I assumed estimation rather than experience, but being FFL, ya never know. Point taken, but not sure how estimation would make any more sense than experience in this context. Even IMO would be kinda weird in Vaj's case. Maybe we need a new one, FWIBT, from what I've been told.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma
Touche (there is supposed to be an accent on that e). It is not my intent to judge or criticize you...we all have the right to worship the belief system and/or spiritual leader that resonates with us. I am glad that you take what you like and leave the rest...in the end, so did I. That says that the ability to discern remains. I didn't meet a single person or IAM teacher that did not acknowledge her as the divine mother. She was put forth as the divine mother in the group lectures and meditations. She is acknowledged as the divine mother all over the internet by devotees and amritapuri alike. It doesn't matter to me...I was just calling a spade a spade. Perhaps the semantic details have blurred with her increase in celebrity status. It seemed to me that people were in a trance - but perhaps this was bliss brought on in part by extended meditation and surround sound - I was just curious about it. I mentioned in passing to a friend of mine a couple of months ago that I had seen Amma. I was surprised that she knew of her - turns out that she works with someone who follows Amma around during her tour here, and she mentioned (with no provocation from me) that this woman comes back very spaced out and it takes her several days to be able to produce anything at work, which worries her as, in addition, all of this woman's conversation revolves around Amma. Re: the life force comment - after I wrote it and a few other posts, I realized that I am no one to talk...I gave way too much of my physical, mental, and emotional energetic self away to my work for years before I finally hit the wall. I feel like I am in recovery and I am not bouncing back a day later. My stress level is still far too high too often. I was able to get some discourse about Amma on this site and the other (from you, for example). After our visit, it was recommended to me that I read her books and just follow the instructionsno questions asked.for chanting the mantra and doing the IAM meditation, both of which seemed quite prescriptive to me and therefore spurred my innate rebellion and desire to ask why should I pray to this woman as god, and why should I support my teenager to do so, no questions asked. I cannot dispute your observations re: Westerners and Indians and cultish behavior. I agree. Westerners have no cultural or time-tested context for Hinduism. I was definitely looking for an answer and did no prior research on anything - so naive that I thought, prior to our visit, that the presence of these saints in our midst was some sort of spiritual truth I'd been missing out on all these years :) that was independent of religion. I have askedWhy do all the enlightened gurus come out of India? One person told me it was simple population statistics. Hm.ya think? --- On Tue, 7/26/11, Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net wrote: From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visit with Amma To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 1:09 AM Denise, I will keep presenting my case as long as you and I are around. :-) You do appear to take what you like and leave the restIsn't this what we do in any situation? I think most everyone take what they like and leave the rest in the world and around Amma. We go to a coffee shop and get what we like and leave the rest, I just can't agree with your generalization, sure a higher percentage of them might consider her as an avatar or divine mother but if you polled them there views will dramatically differ as well. Initially some of them (like I did) might be aping just trying to fit in and will change and fine tune their practices. Many of the devotees I met had some far off, spaced out lookIsn't this again true for the outside world. I see spaced out drivers, spaced out colleagues, space out shoppers everywhere. Sure we might remark at their stupidity, laugh at them for a few minutes, but we move on. We don't let these people distract us from our goal or what we need to finish, we don't stop driving, stop working or shopping. When people get confused and start giving their life force over to someone elseAgain is this unique to just spiritual groups? I see how people are caught in a 24x7 rut trapped in the material world expecting happiness from a million dollar house, a million dollar wife, kids and other possessions. Some are caught in worshiping movie stars, sport icons, some in various political, religious ideologies. Is this not handing over life force to someone else? In fact spirituality ultimately IS about not handing over life force to others and people come there for that life purpose, now you can't make fun of someone for their ignorance, most start from square one. But then, in the Hindu tradition, one does subjugate oneself to one's guruWhen around Amma, keep an eye out for the differences between Indians and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Dear, dear Robin, It's my understanding (IMU?) that, in this: And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (גלגולים), or the cycles (of souls). Vaj is quite right. I'm not a scholar but I've thought I've know for a long time that the Jews of Jesus's time, believed in reincarnation via the above, and I know that a lot of the modern Chassidim do. So, IMO, Jesus, if he actually existed, which I believe he did, would have believed in it, himself. And, since Judaism is the bedrock foundation of Christianity, reincarnation would thereby be very much part of the western traditions if it had not been excised out of the bible by the church fathers. (Though I can conceive of the possibility that they did because Jesus told them to.) Also, I have the memory of watching as my parents began to conceived me, long before the sperm could have hit the egg, a devastating experience for me. (Though I realize, of course, that all such past life/this life memories could be products of fertile imaginations, they don't intuitively feel that way to me.) m On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:19 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear PaliGap, I probably should be more careful before making an historical argument against a Western consensus for belief in reincarnation. It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a proposition—weaker, for instance, inside the context of how a child senses who he is and what the world is. I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case, the evidence for it would be undeniable, and the idea of there *not* being such a thing as reincarnation would have the same status (as a belief) that reincarnation has had—in the West—since Christ. Although (as I point out) after the 1960's there is a much more open attitude among those not dogmatically committed to Christianity that reincarnation might be true. Of course I have no way of demonstrating the metaphysical falseness of reincarnation; after all, I lived with the presumption of the truth of reincarnation for 20 years. But what has caused me *not* to believe in reincarnation, and how I feel now in comparison to how I felt when I believed in reincarnation, makes a strong argument (for me at least) for the conviction that this idea represents a failure to intuit truthfully the design of God's creation. I don't think—just spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturally—we live our lives as if this—reincarnation—must be true. Indeed it seems to me that in a fundamental way we demonstrate in everything we do consciously that we came into existence at the moment of conception, and that before this, we literally did not exist (except for being a thought inside the Creator from the beginning). Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body. If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has determined the very quality and nature of our soul. The idea of reincarnation is mystically irresistible, but as a normative belief, it seems, for me at least, to be a very esoteric and recondite idea. But who knows, PaliGap, you might be Plato, and I, Aquinas: you are here to confront me with God's truth that there is such a thing as reincarnation, whereas I am here to finally realize what a dream I was in when I believed, under the inspiration of Christ, that reincarnation was false. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western Civilization—except after LSD and the invasion of the alien gods of the East, and MMY—because it dose not fit into the philosophy, the art, the science, the music, the psychology, the literature, the history, the personal experience of each individual inside the Western Tradition. Reincarnation got prestige from Plato, but after that, starting with Aristotle, and going through everyone after that (name one prominent philosopher or thinker in the West who has ever—before the 1960's that is—made
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
turquoiseb: Having done What I'm for recently, I figure it's only fair to spend some time rapping about what I'm uh...less for... Well, I am against posting un-formatted, word wrap, messages that exceed one line. They are much too much work to read when displayed edge-to-edge on a 40 inch monitor, and the reply format is totally disjointed. So, I refuse to even read any more of these messy postings from MZ, TB, Curtis, and any others. From what I can see, Judy is the only informant that remembers how to format a discussion post. Go figure. Learn to format for easy reading, using the Enter key, avoid the word wrap, and maybe I'll get back to you, Turq. SNIP
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip I'm for trying to occasionally self-monitor, and when you find that the self has slipped into a lower mindstate, one involving outrage or anger or a feeling of defensiveness or strong attachment, coming back to more balanced mindstates, just as easily as one comes back to the mantra in TM. To do so doth not require a whole *lot* of effort. You just learn to recognize when the emotions are in control and you are not, and reverse the flow. Shift polarity and, instead of focusing on the minus, refocus on the plus. It can make all the difference in a conversation, and in a life. After all my years walking a spiritual path, I find that there are very few things that I can recommend to newbs on that path. I wish that there were more. But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense. Ya know, you're constantly urging lurkers to watch the TMers here and ask themselves whether the practice of TM produces the kind of behavior they would want to emulate (a rhetorical question to which the expected answer is No). Here you're recommending to seekers a technique that you claim will hasten their evolution. As a practitioner of this technique, do you really think that the behavior you exhibit, presumably as a result of the practice, would encourage anybody to take it up themselves? Is the way you conduct yourself here something you believe they would want to emulate?
[FairfieldLife] Re: (alternative theory regarding MZ) Krishnamurti Maharishi
Hello, Short,, done TM 1968-1973, met Maharishi in Spain, he gave me a mantra... also met J. Krishnamurti in 1979.- Conc. your There is the case of Krishnamurti of whom Maharishi said was 'too far gone in unity': If M. meant JK. was too far gone, I wonder then why, when they met on a flight, M. went to JK. and asked him to join and make a joint entreprise/organization/business? There is a certain disrepancy in what M. said and what he did... but then life is full of contradictions/paradoxes... (or is this justification applicable in this case?) Regards, JB --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brahman@ wrote: I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story. Saying that someone's experiences of Unity is not the same as saying someone is fully in Unity. BTW, MMY definitely said that a test of Unity is if you can perform any and all of the sidhis to perfection. Robin and every other person proclaiming themselves in Unity on this forum rejects this claim (I presume because they can't pass the test). I mention this to my non-meditating friends and they laugh long and hard because it is obvious. the reason WHY this test is rejected as being valid. L. How do you feel about those traditions that eschew special powers as an impediment to spiritual progress? For example in Yoga Vasistha there is the following I shall now describe to you the method of gaining what is attainable (siddhi or psychic powers) towards which the sage of self-knowledge is indifferent, which the deluded person considers desirable and which one who is intent on the cultivation of self-knowledge is keen to avoid. and Psychic attainments (siddhis) bestow everything on one whom they seek: after having destroyed his wisdom, they go away. There is the case of Krishnamurti of whom Maharishi said was 'too far gone in unity'. Krishnamurti said: 'So meditation has a significance. One must have this meditative quality of the mind, not occasionally but all day long. And that implies another thing, which is: this something that is sacred, not imagined, not fantastic, affects our lives not only during the waking hours but during sleep. And in this process of meditation there are all kinds of powers that come into being. One becomes clairvoyant, the body then becomes extraordinarily sensitive. Now clairvoyance, healing, thought transference and so on, becomes totally unimportant. All the occult powers become so utterly irrelevant and when you pursue those you are pursuing something that will ultimately lead to illusion. That is one factor.' Shri Ramakrishna has stated that a man cannot realise God if he possesses even one of the eight occult powers. He quoted Lord Krishna teaching Arjuna Friend, if you want to realise Me, you will not succeed if you have even one of the eight occult powers. This is the truth. Occult power is sure to beget pride and pride makes one forget God. A story from Zen tradition: Two monks left their master and sought for the Buddhist Way. They practiced different methods in cultivation. The elder monk practiced supernatural/psychic power, while the younger monk practiced reciting Buddha's name in cultivation. After a few years, the two monks came back to visit their master. They met each other in the jetty, waiting for the boat to take them across the river. Soon the boat came. Suddenly the elder monk jumped into the river. With his psychic power he drifted on the surface of water and crossed the river quickly. The younger monk took the boat and crossed the river slowly. After that, he gave the boatman a penny for the fare. The elder monk showed his self satisfaction and said arrogantly to the younger monk, What have you attained after you cultivated the past few years? See, I have attained the psychic power. The younger monk did not care what the other monk said and replied, Oh, it is just worth a penny! The question must be asked whether the siddhi requirement mentioned by Maharishi is true or false. No one in the TMO now and in the past appears to have demonstrated perfection in this; and in fact, it would seem that it might not be possible to detect the effect of all the siddhis. Maharishi did not appear to have given any demonstration of this requirement. Considering these powers are considered trivial or even a danger in some traditions, what are we to think? It is possible to speculate that
[FairfieldLife] My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
Hello, Since I have noticed some dialogues on J. Krishnamurti, I would share the following. The article (which I have written some years ago) was published in 'The American Yoga Journal', at their request and a Krishnamurti-teachings related magazine. Regards, JB '' My meeting with J. Krishnamurti --- I believe it was in 1982, in Switzerland, after a group meeting with J. Krishnamurti. The time had come to say goodbye. I noticed how others were very respectfully taking turns to shake his hand in farewell. For what seemed like an eternity, I was in the midst of a dilemma. On the one hand, there was the wish to touch this being and, on the other, a monologue saying, What nonsense are you up to... playing the guru game after all, aren't you? And while I was going round like a mouse trapped in a cage there was only one door, and K was standing by it suddenly I saw the situation in a sober way: simply a matter of saying goodbye to someone with whom one has spent some time; no fuss, no thoughts of expecting shaktipat (energy transference), or any other gloriously pink astral emotions. I was the last one in the queue, so there was no way out of it. I walked towards him, shook his hand and said, Thank you for this time and goodbye. Yeees, sir, he said. That was all, on the outwardly visible level. In those few seconds, the following also happened: He took my hand in his, and with his other hand, my elbow; it felt as though my whole being and its contents were being shaken into place; a current of a very high speed passed on through my hand to the rest of the body, from head to toe; it was like a good and instant shower of energy. He looked into my eyes. I've never seen such dark, large and bottomless eyes! For a split second I felt a fear similar to that of falling off a mountain precipice, as though there was a space without end, and invisible and yet perceived floods of love were pouring from his eyes. (In view of this, it's quite interesting that some people call him `dry' and `intellectual'.) I was standing there, hardly prepared for all that, and this little man, who physically did not reach higher than my chest, was definitely felt by me to be about 4 times taller than myself. Because it all happened so quickly, only when I stepped outside the room did I realize what had taken place. I had witnessed a few similar events in the company of others before I met K, but the delicacy, subtlety, purity and sobriety contained in the nature of this meeting was somehow unique. He was a rare one! I've read that even though he hardly ever talked about matters of a mystical nature, he himself said that there will not be another like him for several hundred years, the reason for this being the necessity for a body that can withstand the enormous volume of energy similar to that which passed through K's body. And my mind at times throws up the question: Does such an encounter leave some kind of a `seed' in one, or is it just another awesome experience? Maybe I'll never know, and it probably does not matter either. JB http://www.krishnamurti-denmark.dk/ (in English and Danish) http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/default.php (The official repository of the authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti) `'
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense... authfriend: As a practitioner of this technique, do you really think that the behavior you exhibit, presumably as a result of the practice, would encourage anybody to take it up themselves? There are two key phrases here: TB and TM. A True Believer (TB) believes in MMY's soul-monad theory of the Self and believes in Transcendental Meditation (TM). Barry is a TB and apparently he still believes in the TM. TM is to prefer the Self in activity, and Barry is the TurquoiseB (TB). Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
Nice piece, J. Thanks for posting it. Since you wrote it, have you come any closer to an answer to the question you pose at the end? Any sense of a seed beginning to sprout? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, J JB789@... wrote: Hello, Since I have noticed some dialogues on J. Krishnamurti, I would share the following. The article (which I have written some years ago) was published in 'The American Yoga Journal', at their request and a Krishnamurti-teachings related magazine. Regards, JB '' My meeting with J. Krishnamurti --- I believe it was in 1982, in Switzerland, after a group meeting with J. Krishnamurti. The time had come to say goodbye. I noticed how others were very respectfully taking turns to shake his hand in farewell. For what seemed like an eternity, I was in the midst of a dilemma. On the one hand, there was the wish to touch this being and, on the other, a monologue saying, What nonsense are you up to... playing the guru game after all, aren't you? And while I was going round like a mouse trapped in a cage there was only one door, and K was standing by it suddenly I saw the situation in a sober way: simply a matter of saying goodbye to someone with whom one has spent some time; no fuss, no thoughts of expecting shaktipat (energy transference), or any other gloriously pink astral emotions. I was the last one in the queue, so there was no way out of it. I walked towards him, shook his hand and said, Thank you for this time and goodbye. Yeees, sir, he said. That was all, on the outwardly visible level. In those few seconds, the following also happened: He took my hand in his, and with his other hand, my elbow; it felt as though my whole being and its contents were being shaken into place; a current of a very high speed passed on through my hand to the rest of the body, from head to toe; it was like a good and instant shower of energy. He looked into my eyes. I've never seen such dark, large and bottomless eyes! For a split second I felt a fear similar to that of falling off a mountain precipice, as though there was a space without end, and invisible and yet perceived floods of love were pouring from his eyes. (In view of this, it's quite interesting that some people call him `dry' and `intellectual'.) I was standing there, hardly prepared for all that, and this little man, who physically did not reach higher than my chest, was definitely felt by me to be about 4 times taller than myself. Because it all happened so quickly, only when I stepped outside the room did I realize what had taken place. I had witnessed a few similar events in the company of others before I met K, but the delicacy, subtlety, purity and sobriety contained in the nature of this meeting was somehow unique. He was a rare one! I've read that even though he hardly ever talked about matters of a mystical nature, he himself said that there will not be another like him for several hundred years, the reason for this being the necessity for a body that can withstand the enormous volume of energy similar to that which passed through K's body. And my mind at times throws up the question: Does such an encounter leave some kind of a `seed' in one, or is it just another awesome experience? Maybe I'll never know, and it probably does not matter either. JB http://www.krishnamurti-denmark.dk/ (in English and Danish) http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/default.php (The official repository of the authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti)
[FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals)
Has everyone heard the story Milarepa used to explain resentment to his devotees? Three Repa monks (with control of their inner heat) were meditating on the top of a mountain of ice. They wore nothing but light cotton and sat on rough wool blankets. After 10 years of meditating through blizzards and ice storms one monk opened his eyes and said: You're sitting on my blanket He then closed his eyes and the three continued to meditate for another 10 years of cold and severe storms. And then the second Repa opened his eyes and said: No I'm not! He then closed his eyes and for another 20 years the three monks meditated radiating nothing but peace and serenity until the third monk jumped up, grabbed his blanket and said: I'm sick and tired of all this bickering, I'm outta here! From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 3:54:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Your Call (was Re: Maharishi's Sandals) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Damn dude, when does your vacation end? You need a good boot in the pants and some decaf. Like the events you continue to obsess on and carry a grudge over, Jim, my vacation ended long ago. Do you remember the famous Zen story about the two monks whose order prohibited contact with women? Approaching a river, one noticed a woman unable to get across, so he offered to give her a piggyback ride over on his back. They got to the other side, the woman thanked him, and went her way. The two monks walked on in silence, but the other monk, the one who had not helped the woman across the river, was quietly simmering inside. He finally couldn't control himself any more and said angrily, How could you have dishonored your vows like that, to touch a woman?! The other monk said, Put her down. I did, back at the river. Put the vacation thing down, dude. You might also re-read the post you're replying to and consider it a challenge to you, too. Your call. Over and out... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Barry I have read your message and I disagree with everything you say :-). Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to several other people's approach on this forum, in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, but an indication of a fatal character flaw. I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you only seem to be able to come up with something to say when it's piling on to one of the three folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into other conversations here, and contributed to them. I commend you for that and hope that you continue that trend. My comment was to poke you a little over the -- as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect to play pile on. Another thing I was pointing out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the same five people, over and over. It's as if -- from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, and are desperate to get in the last word. And not just once, but over and over and over. We have an opportunity right now to see whether I am correct. One of these instigators, told in no uncertain terms that from the other person's point of view the long, protracted discussion / argument he'd been lured into had reached its conclusion and that nothing new was ever going to be said, the person who wanted (some would say desperately) to prolong it responded by posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as her last word. I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see what happens. The other party has an opportunity here to allow her to *have* the last word she craves so desperately, and just let the matter drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for one more attempt to get him to punch back against Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the argument again. I personally hope that he takes the latter route, because if he does that will set up an interesting experiment. How would the instigator react if he fails to? Will she let the argument drop and post about other things -- NOT just for the rest of this week but for weeks and months in the future, or will she just lie in wait for the victim's next post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to insult him back into a head-to-head again? My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the things that the instigator carefully snips out of her compulsive replies to every post in which I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the victim becomes one again and gets sucked back into this particular
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Mark Landau: And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (×'××'××××), or the cycles (of souls)... Judaism is a monotheistic religion, so it's difficult to square this with the reincarnation belief in a dualism. This applies also to Buddhism as well, since the Buddha did not ascribe to the soul-monad theory. How can a soul 'reincarnate' when there is no soul? Although Kabbalah propounds the Unity of God, one of the most serious and sustained criticisms is that it may lead away from monotheism, and instead promote dualism, the belief that there is a supernatural counterpart to God... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
[FairfieldLife] Huge Crop Circle in Wiltshire reported today
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/windmillhill2/windmillhill2011b.html
[FairfieldLife] My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
Have you read this book about Krishnamurti's sex life? http://www.amazon.com/Lives-Shadow-Krishnamurti-Radha-Sloss/dp/0595121314/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top As a child Krishnamurti treated the author like a daughter. Her real father, Rajagopal, was the Indian gentleman who managed K's business affairs and made the Krishnamurti books possible (Krishnamurti talked while Rajagopal worked). The author mother, Rajagopal's wife, had a passinate affair with K for a decade or two (seems K was more monogamous that Big M). After Rajagopal found out about the affair he and K went into litigation for 40-50 years although Rajagopal continued to manage K's (business) affairs professionally. The lawsuit make Bleak House look like The Little Prince. IMO, worth the read. I spent two week in Ojai listening to K on two occasions. I have nothing but respect for him. A very snappy dresser. From: J jb...@hotmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:22:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] My meeting with J. Krishnamurti Hello, Since I have noticed some dialogues on J. Krishnamurti, I would share the following. The article (which I have written some years ago) was published in 'The American Yoga Journal', at their request and a Krishnamurti-teachings related magazine. Regards, JB '' My meeting with J. Krishnamurti --- I believe it was in 1982, in Switzerland, after a group meeting with J. Krishnamurti. The time had come to say goodbye. I noticed how others were very respectfully taking turns to shake his hand in farewell. For what seemed like an eternity, I was in the midst of a dilemma. On the one hand, there was the wish to touch this being and, on the other, a monologue saying, What nonsense are you up to... playing the guru game after all, aren't you? And while I was going round like a mouse trapped in a cage – there was only one door, and K was standing by it – suddenly I saw the situation in a sober way: simply a matter of saying goodbye to someone with whom one has spent some time; no fuss, no thoughts of expecting shaktipat (energy transference), or any other gloriously pink astral emotions. I was the last one in the queue, so there was no way out of it. I walked towards him, shook his hand and said, Thank you for this time and goodbye. Yeees, sir, he said. That was all, on the outwardly visible level. In those few seconds, the following also happened: He took my hand in his, and with his other hand, my elbow; it felt as though my whole being and its contents were being shaken into place; a current of a very high speed passed on through my hand to the rest of the body, from head to toe; it was like a good and instant shower of energy. He looked into my eyes. I've never seen such dark, large and bottomless eyes! For a split second I felt a fear similar to that of falling off a mountain precipice, as though there was a space without end, and invisible – and yet perceived – floods of love were pouring from his eyes. (In view of this, it's quite interesting that some people call him `dry' and `intellectual'.) I was standing there, hardly prepared for all that, and this little man, who physically did not reach higher than my chest, was definitely felt by me to be about 4 times taller than myself. Because it all happened so quickly, only when I stepped outside the room did I realize what had taken place. I had witnessed a few similar events in the company of others before I met K, but the delicacy, subtlety, purity and sobriety contained in the nature of this meeting was somehow unique. He was a rare one! I've read that even though he hardly ever talked about matters of a mystical nature, he himself said that there will not be another like him for several hundred years, the reason for this being the necessity for a body that can withstand the enormous volume of energy similar to that which passed through K's body. And my mind at times throws up the question: Does such an encounter leave some kind of a `seed' in one, or is it just another awesome experience? Maybe I'll never know, and it probably does not matter either. JB http://www.krishnamurti-denmark.dk/ (in English and Danish) http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/default.php (The official repository of the authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti) `'
[FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
My meeting with J. Krishnamurti Bob Price: Have you read this book about Krishnamurti's sex life? Oh crap, I knew this was coming up any minute! Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Re: [FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?
We might just boil it down to there's no ditches that need to be dug. Maybe that will make the point clear to the OO's (outwardly oblivious). The revolution started a while back. So far it is mostly online. Plant memes and see where they go. Others will pick them up and carry them elsewhere. Post on other blogs and newstory comments. After all, it's a tug-a-war and you have to pull hard to take it any sensible direction. Some trends analysts believe that the economy will crash, probably wiping out many of the big corporations. Local businesses will revive themselves, new ones spring up and we'll discover community again. We'll help each other out. Empty Walmarts will become bazaars for people to sell things they make or grow. We have plenty of great technology that won't be going away we can make use of even it if sits on a plateau and doesn't evolve for decades. After all, people just come up with this stuff for their own rice bowl. ;-) On 07/25/2011 06:51 PM, Denise Evans wrote: First person accounts are the most interesting thing on this forum - except for the great pics and video clips and interesting perspectives (that don't get mired in articulate nonsense). I liked the post that said that the versions that are posted here are only first drafts. Too true and too funny. I'm with you on the paradigm change. I'm 48 and honestly, worked a lot of labor jobs in my 20's so didn't get going on a family and career until my 30's - so I always figured I had a decade to make up - which I did. How does one go about starting a revolution? What are the values as a society that we are going to forward as the agenda...it all seems to break down in the how. We should not be fear-based in our decision-making process as a country. It's a short trip from the cradle to the crypt...we won't be conscious of our past lives in our future lives - enlightenment or no enlightenment - whaddya we have to lose by taking a stand in this one? Oh yes, blacklisting I just am learning how to cook...my kids want a home-cooked meal...eating out is hum drum for them. I am loving the basics. I cleaned my house...so satisfyingno more housecleaner. My life as a corporate slave was a personal disaster and fraught with family sacrifice and I don't want to go back. I may have to rent the house out is the irony in all this..never did get to enjoy it. Yes, it is the lower-income, fixed-income seniors and our/my generation, in particular, that are going to face a tough future. We have no pensions - I have little savings. I tell my daughter who is heading off to college - Honey, it is up to you to save the world...no pressure...expect that I will live with you. Tee Hee. Read the big article today about how much money the CEO's are making in 2011? And we want to give that category a tax break? Seriously? I just attended my first class in XHTML - $329 for the very basics - way too much money for such basic info. Easy, breezy. I have decided that I should have gone into the programming industry (yes, I know XHTML is not real programming). You got into an industry that is currently relevant and therefore, pays well. Learned a little on the history of the Internet and Web - fascinating. I always wondered who was running the show. --- On Mon, 7/25/11, Bhairitunoozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Bhairitunoozg...@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, July 25, 2011, 12:30 PM You are lucky to have chosen a profession that kept you employed for so many years. The first part of my adult life I was a professional musician. Not necessarily a starving one but never hitting the jackpot of playing with a group that paid very well. I'm well trained and some opportunities did arise with name groups but never came though. But also since I was a kid liked playing around with electronics and in 1983 bought a cheap personal computer. I took to programming like a duck takes to water because to me it was like writing music. That took me on a much better paying career path. My only in-house experience was with a company which I began contracting for and then they brought me in-house to run programmer management or what is sometimes referred to as herding cats. I left on my own accord as the company got to be too big and it's direction unclear. A few months later it was gobbled up by a much larger company. Many were laid off but I've always figured I wouldn't have been as the larger company was always trying to hire me away. I just wouldn't have liked the commute to their main headquarters. The commute to the company I worked for was all of two miles. I went back to contract programming to pay bills and mortgage. Because of my experience of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Friends, we have recorded the definitive modern album of old hymns on this subject. Songs of the great transition, hymns of the Bardo. Songs of Summerland. Songs of comforting hospice for the weary pilgrim of life. http://fairfolk.org/throne Right now, for only $15 you can share in and be in this knowledge. For a limited time! Act now and order yourself a copy before it becomes too late for you to act! Order your copy right now. http://fairfolk.org/contact All Blessings, -Buck, in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Dear, dear Robin, It's my understanding (IMU?) that, in this: And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (×'××'××××), or the cycles (of souls). Vaj is quite right. I'm not a scholar but I've thought I've know for a long time that the Jews of Jesus's time, believed in reincarnation via the above, and I know that a lot of the modern Chassidim do. So, IMO, Jesus, if he actually existed, which I believe he did, would have believed in it, himself. And, since Judaism is the bedrock foundation of Christianity, reincarnation would thereby be very much part of the western traditions if it had not been excised out of the bible by the church fathers. (Though I can conceive of the possibility that they did because Jesus told them to.) Also, I have the memory of watching as my parents began to conceived me, long before the sperm could have hit the egg, a devastating experience for me. (Though I realize, of course, that all such past life/this life memories could be products of fertile imaginations, they don't intuitively feel that way to me.) m On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:19 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear PaliGap, I probably should be more careful before making an historical argument against a Western consensus for belief in reincarnation. It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a propositionâweaker, for instance, inside the context of how a child senses who he is and what the world is. I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case, the evidence for it would be undeniable, and the idea of there *not* being such a thing as reincarnation would have the same status (as a belief) that reincarnation has hadâin the Westâsince Christ. Although (as I point out) after the 1960's there is a much more open attitude among those not dogmatically committed to Christianity that reincarnation might be true. Of course I have no way of demonstrating the metaphysical falseness of reincarnation; after all, I lived with the presumption of the truth of reincarnation for 20 years. But what has caused me *not* to believe in reincarnation, and how I feel now in comparison to how I felt when I believed in reincarnation, makes a strong argument (for me at least) for the conviction that this idea represents a failure to intuit truthfully the design of God's creation. I don't thinkâjust spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturallyâwe live our lives as if thisâreincarnationâmust be true. Indeed it seems to me that in a fundamental way we demonstrate in everything we do consciously that we came into existence at the moment of conception, and that before this, we literally did not exist (except for being a thought inside the Creator from the beginning). Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body. If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has determined the very quality and nature of our soul. The idea of reincarnation is mystically irresistible, but as a normative belief, it seems, for me at least, to be a very esoteric and recondite idea. But who knows, PaliGap, you might be Plato, and I, Aquinas: you are here to confront me with God's truth that there is such a thing as reincarnation, whereas I am here to finally realize what a dream I was in when I believed, under the inspiration of Christ, that reincarnation was false. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Masked Zebra responds to Pal Gap: Dear Robin, It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. That's fine Robin - but our intuitions differ. RESPONSE: That poses an interesting question: is there any way by which one could determine the relative validity (i.e. the truth-tracking objectivity) of one intuition that points one way (no reincarnation) and one intuition that points the other way (there is reincarnation)? I will make a bold claim here, Pali Gap, and that is: I hold the idea of reincarnation to be false with a far greater sense of confidence than you hold to the idea that reincarnation is true. Hold it. I am not saying I can prove this. And of course you will maintain, where two intuitions are in conflict with each other, there is no way of determining which intuition is deceived, which intuition coincides with reality. The way I have worked out my own personal philosophy, I hold to the notion that one's first person subjectivity swamps one's third person perspective whenever there is some objective (but unknown to the individual) gap between what one professes to believe (in the defence of that belief at least) and the actual structure of reality. Therefore, the extent to which you can maintain your equanimity in the face of my strong disbelief in reincarnation partially at least goes towards demonstrating the viability of that belief (that reincarnation is true). I think I am reduced here, Pal Gap, to just declaring the most profoundest of *experience* that reincarnation is false. I would even go so far as to say that It has been *revealed* to me to be falsenot in some Biblical or mystical way; not at all. But in the force and potency with which the idea of reincarnation appeared to me to be the result of my susceptibility to intelligences seeking to deceive me (the intelligences which essentially created my enlightenment). But you are obviously a thoughtful and deep thinker, and I sense in your reply here that the chances of ever persuading you against your belief in reincarnation to be zero. I think the only way I could ever make any kind of headway in this debate is to pose the question to myself: Why do you, Robin, disbelieve in the idea of reincarnation? Put in that way, I think a context would open up for me whereby I could argue with something more than my passion or intuition, but could establish a pretty good case for the probability of there being such a thing a reincarnation being significantly less than the probability that it is true. For instance, apart from the temporal problem of simultaneity of individual existence, according to reincarnation I could be you, you could be me. This strikes me as manifestly absurd and more than trivializes the significance of our individual and discrete sense of selfhood. Butapart from the difficulties of existing as two persons at the same timethere is nothing, abstracted conceived, which represents a contradiction here. Anyone could be anyone. There is just no reasonable or meaningful way to decode what reincarnation means in terms of: who really am I? Who do I know myself to have been? Why is is that I cannot consciously become aware of over time the objective and exact reasons why I am having to live in this body, after having been in that body? Bodies having no resurrectional potential at all; once gone they rot away into mere atoms. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Again our intuitions differ. RESPONSE: But you see, Pali Gap, having experienced what it is like to know that reincarnation *is* true (via TM and Maharishi and LSD), I now have had the experience of knowing (or, if you like, disbelieving) reincarnation to be false. I can subjectively compare these two experiences in terms of their felt purchase on reality. And I can tell you, from a first person perspective, as well as from a third person perspective, there is no comparison, even though I remember how satisfied and convinced I was that reincarnation *had* to be true. I have the advantage of having gone from 1 disbelief in reincarnationjust from simply growing up in the West 2. belief in reincarnation (via TM and MMY and LSD) 3. disbelief in reincarnation. And I can tell you my epistemic confidence in the falsity of reincarnation has assumed a very form than it did before I let the East into my brain. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
And average Willy's hate the subject of sex. From: richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:24:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti My meeting with J. Krishnamurti Bob Price: Have you read this book about Krishnamurti's sex life? Oh crap, I knew this was coming up any minute! Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt
[FairfieldLife] For Masked Zebra
One of the most precious family relics passed down in my family is an old, 1749 copy of Der Martyrer Speigel, The Mirror of the Martyrs, which details many of the deaths and the torture of the non- resisters - non-Catholic Christians who rejected war and violence and demanded separation of church and state. Most Mennonites and Amish have copies and traditionally give them as wedding presents. If you ever get to see the museum exhibit, go see it. It has a way of changing people. In a world where torture still persists, it's a message that's not to be forgotten. Here the intro. film to the exhibit, narrated by the curator: http://www.bethelks.edu/kauffman/martyrs/video.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
The messages on this forum go through quite a number of different software applications, and Yahoo's own software on the forum is inconsistent in the way it handles spacing etc. Its rich-text editor has some surprising screw-ups. The screen size on which a message will display is also an unknown, anything from a cell phone displaying plain text to large monitors displaying HTML. You can reduce the width of a web browser window to something more like a normal page. As for other messy problems, I, for example, have given up trying to clean them up. I do not see the possibility of a uniform solution for everyone, unless all our software a equipment is the same. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: turquoiseb: Having done What I'm for recently, I figure it's only fair to spend some time rapping about what I'm uh...less for... Well, I am against posting un-formatted, word wrap, messages that exceed one line. They are much too much work to read when displayed edge-to-edge on a 40 inch monitor, and the reply format is totally disjointed. So, I refuse to even read any more of these messy postings from MZ, TB, Curtis, and any others. From what I can see, Judy is the only informant that remembers how to format a discussion post. Go figure. Learn to format for easy reading, using the Enter key, avoid the word wrap, and maybe I'll get back to you, Turq. SNIP
Fw: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
Sorry, snip - Forwarded Message - From: Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:48:03 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti And average Willy's hate the subject of sex. From: richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:24:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti My meeting with J. Krishnamurti Bob Price: Have you read this book about Krishnamurti's sex life? Oh crap, I knew this was coming up any minute! Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Abiding and un-abiding unity as Varying apertures in experience. Great thread here. Last month Rick Archer put up some audio files of Adyashanti here acknowledging and talking about this in the way that Adyashanti teaches. Similarly I noticed this thread too coming up in an old hymnal that I sing out of. In 500 pages of text songs of all kinds a few are deep and yearn in this theme of variability, the 'Knowledge come' and 'knowledge' lost state, as we might say. As an old Christian mystical theme describing this experience its description can come along under the term, 'acedia'. I have roped some of these hymns together in to a playlist. Rory, I should bet the old minister inside you would appreciate where this sound comes from. snip * * I thank you, and my DNA-line thanks you, Buck! :-) Could you tell me how to obtain the plug-in to listen to these?
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
Why play word games? For example, I am no fan of hypocrisy. Or according to your way of thinking, I am for being against hypocrisy, which is against being for double standards. WTF? Instead why not culture your consciousness so that it is naturally uplifting and unattached? You remember, alternating dyeing the cloth with making it steadfast in the sun. What you are suggesting instead is some sort of mood making, a game you play with yourself on the surface of your mind. I am all for *not* doing that. The other possibility is that you are attempting to make a spiritual big deal out of the tendency for any normal person to accurately represent themselves through their words and actions, modifying their behavior appropriately, or not, upon reflection. If this is what you consider mindfulness and spiritual practice, you may as well include breathing as part of your spiritual practice, cuz everyone I have ever met does it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: The Subject line, for those who might have been tempted to read it aloud to themselves, is not a play on MoFo. That's an acronym for a longer phrase describing guys who may have a tad too much Oediphus in their personalities. It's merely a description of me sitting down in yet another cafe and pounding out yet another rap, this time trying to focus more on the things I'm for than I do on the things I'm against. It's tough. I am as much a victim of the self-importance mindset I railed against in my previous post as anyone else. For far too many years I've spend more of my Nettime against things than I have for things. As I suggested in that rap, it's easy. So in this rap I'm going to try to buck the easy path and go for the path of -- Warning: TM TBs may want to hit Next now, because I'm about to use the E word -- effort. One of the things I'm for IS, in fact, effort. I think it accomplishes things that Take it easy, take it as it comes does not. For example, mindfulness requires a tiny bit of effort. So does TM, despite what TBs might claim, but I'll give them that mindfulness may require a bit more effort than TM. Especially out of meditation and in activity, where the rubber meets the road. I'm for trying to occasionally self-monitor, and when you find that the self has slipped into a lower mindstate, one involving outrage or anger or a feeling of defensiveness or strong attachment, coming back to more balanced mindstates, just as easily as one comes back to the mantra in TM. To do so doth not require a whole *lot* of effort. You just learn to recognize when the emotions are in control and you are not, and reverse the flow. Shift polarity and, instead of focusing on the minus, refocus on the plus. It can make all the difference in a conversation, and in a life. After all my years walking a spiritual path, I find that there are very few things that I can recommend to newbs on that path. I wish that there were more. But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1SIUGRxRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j1SIUGRxRM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: The RC/Catholicism story reminds me of Bernadette Roberts, who had a nondual awakening and then proceeded to box herself back into her old Catholic perspective. It weirds me out that people could be blessed with a taste of nondual freedom and then claw themselves back into a religious theme decorated prison cell. I asked Tom T about it, and he said some people are addicted to being an I/me story. * * I can hear Maharishi-ji saying, with His beautiful, tender heart-love thrilling the room... And so, how many here are having this experience of being addicted to being an I/me story? ... Hmm? Almost everyone. Wery good. Wery good. Jai...Guru...Dv. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
He wouldn't have much of an audience if they weren't. No need for rehab.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The RC/Catholicism story reminds me of Bernadette Roberts, who had a nondual awakening and then proceeded to box herself back into her old Catholic perspective. It weirds me out that people could be blessed with a taste of nondual freedom and then claw themselves back into a religious theme decorated prison cell. I asked Tom T about it, and he said some people are addicted to being an I/me story. * * I can hear Maharishi-ji saying, with His beautiful, tender heart-love thrilling the room... And so, how many here are having this experience of being addicted to being an I/me story? ... Hmm? Almost everyone. Wery good. Wery good. Jai...Guru...Dv. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: OK, let's take it from the top... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Fun to watch Curtis (and Edg, but to a lesser extent because he isn't immediately involved) stand on his head to avoid seeing what's actually going on here, exercising his creative powers to the utmost to come up with an alternate story line that will allow him to feel less bad about himself. So the mission of the sour plum is to help assist me feeling badly about myself? So noble, so kind. So you. But your feeling bad about yourself is the problem *in the first place*. If you didn't try to deny those bad feelings but confronted them--made friends with your Shadow, as I put it below--you'd be able to feel authentically good about yourself without all the Band- Aids. An interesting case to try to make about me, and one that in my life's experience is unique to you Judy. Personally I think you are just reaching for a bad thing about a good guy. That's right, my self image is that I am a good person who likes people and loves his life. Sorry to disappoint. Two hints: (1) Not looking for a guru in Curtis; and (2) anger *per se* isn't the problem. It's the Hulk- like transformation the anger triggers that's the problem. Or maybe Jekyll/Hyde is a better analogy. Off my schtick for a moment here. Your complaint is ridiculously pointed at me for the most human quality of reacting angrily to hostility and (what seems to me) unfair attack. Already addressed. How much clearer could I have been that anger *per se* isn't the problem I have with you? There is nothing hulk-like about this switch. Already addressed. I explained that the Hulk and Jekyll/ Hyde were metaphors for the extreme contrast between Mr. Wonderful and how you behave when you address a hostile challenge. Most people act differently when they are being treated nicely and fairly compared to being attacked. I am not unique in this despite your clumsy attempts to make this case. snip You more than anyone here has an agenda to get my goat I have no such agenda. This seems dishonest but it isn't something I could prove. and when you succeed you claim it as a personality defect rather than the natural reaction that you yourself share here. No, again, as I've said, it's the creature you become when your goat has been gotten. You get my goat too, but I deal with it straightforwardly without fighting dirty. Yes, the Hulk-like transformation is a personality defect. Do you think you don't have any personality defects, unlike anybody else in the world? I've got 'em, you've got 'em, everybody got 'em. I think you would be about the last person in the world I would go to for insight into this. You are trying to demonize me for trying to gain rapport with people here (that is being Mr. Wonderful) and then reacting defensively when attacked. And a typical cycle of triggers is if any poster has a run of too many positive posts with me. It seems to unhinge you. This is just silly. I have NO problem with Mr. Wonderful or with your positive exchanges with others. I enjoy it when you're in this mode as much as anybody else does. I do have the sense that you sometimes work on it a little harder than you need to, that you're having trouble convincing *yourself*. So you go for Mr. Super-Wonderful to compensate. That was a bit tortured wasn't it? And given how snaky my posts are it is bullshit. There are some people I communicate with in a consistently friendly style, but it is mutual so I have no need to work it harder And your Dr. Phil analysis is laughable. I am friendlier with many people here and more interested in people than you are. I am also a professional entertainer and you are a professional picker of nits. So rather than chalk up our different styles to our different temperaments, you imagine a hidden flaw that I need to convince myself of what again...? Made up bullshit at best and outright projection at worst. The sense I have is that your image of yourself as Mr. Wonderful is precarious. And that's why you overdo it at times, and also why you freak out when you're challenged. I don't conform in any way to your made up fantasy. And I don't overdo any aspect of the friendliness I exhibit here with some posters. Unlike you I am very expressive of my emotions. You know, like a performer might be. At any rate, Curtis might find it of benefit to do some reading/thinking about Jung's recommendation to acknowledge and ultimately accept one's Shadow side. If you can make friends with your Shadow, you're a lot more likely to get it to work with you rather than against you. First of all please don't attempt to couch your
[FairfieldLife] Visualizing the US national debt
This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
* * HA! Quite right, Jim. Addicts R Us! Lord love a duck. Very good. Very good... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: He wouldn't have much of an audience if they weren't. No need for rehab.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: The RC/Catholicism story reminds me of Bernadette Roberts, who had a nondual awakening and then proceeded to box herself back into her old Catholic perspective. It weirds me out that people could be blessed with a taste of nondual freedom and then claw themselves back into a religious theme decorated prison cell. I asked Tom T about it, and he said some people are addicted to being an I/me story. * * I can hear Maharishi-ji saying, with His beautiful, tender heart-love thrilling the room... And so, how many here are having this experience of being addicted to being an I/me story? ... Hmm? Almost everyone. Wery good. Wery good. Jai...Guru...Dv. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Fairfield Bitching
I am wondering whether Rick wouldn't like to start a new site called Fairfield Life Bitching for those who wear their egos on their sleeves and like to snipe at each other. Often a good series of posts begin around a spiritual experience or idea and soon the usual suspects start in on each other and instead of having a decent discussion one finds oneself mired in repartees and point scoring. Sometimes this is amusing but if short of time rather irritating and lowers the tone of what is supposed to be an exploration of spiritual ideas. When posts become personal you could just write I am dumping on give name and direct interested folk to the Bitching Site. I think this would allow others to read better motivated material. The Bitching site might become popular. It can amusing to read repartee but only if one has the time; like forwarded jokes!. Also I think some people should write each other directly. Mark's post got excessive long replies from someone, replies that made me ask obvious questions but avoiding the personal didn't and frankly were in the nature of raves that should have gone to Mark directly rather than hogging so much space. And while griping can't people delete all the posts before they make their own. David.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Bitching
Ah the seasonal return of the bitching about bitching post... I question the concept of you getting mired in anything you are not choosing to read. The concept of hogging so much space is misapplied in the context of forum such as this. You see contrary to some of our government leader's conception of the Internet, it is not a bunch of tubes. Choose what you read, write a bunch fascinating stuff for the rest of us to read. No one here needs to change in any way to suit our preferences. (There will be a post accusing me of doing this to you, I know.) And when you open the Bitching site please leave room for a bitching about bitching about bitching site. I will put my stuff there. (Till it gets full of my words like a houses in the Hoarders documentaries.) Totally bitch'n! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David fiskedavid@... wrote: I am wondering whether Rick wouldn't like to start a new site called Fairfield Life Bitching for those who wear their egos on their sleeves and like to snipe at each other. Often a good series of posts begin around a spiritual experience or idea and soon the usual suspects start in on each other and instead of having a decent discussion one finds oneself mired in repartees and point scoring. Sometimes this is amusing but if short of time rather irritating and lowers the tone of what is supposed to be an exploration of spiritual ideas. When posts become personal you could just write I am dumping on give name and direct interested folk to the Bitching Site. I think this would allow others to read better motivated material. The Bitching site might become popular. It can amusing to read repartee but only if one has the time; like forwarded jokes!. Also I think some people should write each other directly. Mark's post got excessive long replies from someone, replies that made me ask obvious questions but avoiding the personal didn't and frankly were in the nature of raves that should have gone to Mark directly rather than hogging so much space. And while griping can't people delete all the posts before they make their own. David.
Fw: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
It's not about sex or no sex. It's about K.'s long-term duplicity in bedding married women and disguising it from their husbands, some whom were close friends. With one of them he went to court to try and stop him from revealing the truth. This is just more proof that there is no enlightenment to be discovered or realized at any time in any way, in any form. There is only our innate presence-awareness (chit not chitta). However, if duplicitous behavior is how we act then presence-awareness is covered over by the 'I' and we have not freed ourselves from the grip of ordinary desires. This is true no matter how much silence we acquaint our minds with in life. .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Sorry, snip - Forwarded Message - From: Bob Price bobpriced@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:48:03 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti  And average Willy's hate the subject of sex. From: richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:24:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti  My meeting with J. Krishnamurti Bob Price: Have you read this book about Krishnamurti's sex life? Oh crap, I knew this was coming up any minute! Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble. Fascinating. Great graphic. The thing is - how much stuff is being kept off balance sheet by banks/governments through fancy accounting? Here in the UK (and in other countries such as your erstwhile debt-troubled Spain), we had a thing called a PFI Initiative which allowed previous governments to increase liabilities without it appearing on the accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#Debt We saw what happened when the too-clever-by-half financial instrument chickens of the banks came home to roost. are we now seeing the same for Government debt? Richard M (aka PaliGap)'s Diagnosis In A Nutshell? We're all paying for hubris
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Bitching
.bhaa..hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Sorry, all the words I can think of as a response^, to share with a post bitching about bitching. : ) Unless the tile Fairfield Bitching, refers to a notice of females in heat looking for mates in Fairfield, I may have over stepped by polite boundaries by saying so in public. *blush --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David fiskedavid@... wrote: I am wondering whether Rick wouldn't like to start a new site called Fairfield Life Bitching for those who wear their egos on their sleeves and like to snipe at each other. Often a good series of posts begin around a spiritual experience or idea and soon the usual suspects start in on each other and instead of having a decent discussion one finds oneself mired in repartees and point scoring. Sometimes this is amusing but if short of time rather irritating and lowers the tone of what is supposed to be an exploration of spiritual ideas. When posts become personal you could just write I am dumping on give name and direct interested folk to the Bitching Site. I think this would allow others to read better motivated material. The Bitching site might become popular. It can amusing to read repartee but only if one has the time; like forwarded jokes!. Also I think some people should write each other directly. Mark's post got excessive long replies from someone, replies that made me ask obvious questions but avoiding the personal didn't and frankly were in the nature of raves that should have gone to Mark directly rather than hogging so much space. And while griping can't people delete all the posts before they make their own. David.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
I think Barry's writing is more nuanced than you give him credit for. He does have a definite style, but within that style there is a lot of variety. Sometimes I find Barry's mode of expression really annoying, but he is not the cause of that annoyance, it is a projection of my own mind. We all have depth and we all have shallow pools where we fall short of greatness, which probably far more often than we realise because when we create something, even a post here, we see what is most like us and that is a kind of faux unity, and it is natural be enamoured of what we have done and skip over faults to which we are blind. Your reaction to Barry has a large emotional component, you are trying set something right, which is your prerogative. I am not an actor, but the glory of acting is subtext, expressing what is between the lines, giving life to what otherwise would be a kind of dull repetition. Reading between the lines of a post has certain dangers because we might just be projecting unconsciously something in us, some unconscious pattern that is not in the post. Some of Barry's posts are really clean, and some have deliberate emotional land-mines woven in that can trigger our projections. This is not unique to Barry, politicians attempt to exploit emotional patterns and unconscious behaviour all the time. If this is done 'right' it can serve to wake us up to our own hidden shallow pools. For me, sometimes Barry's writing works this way, sometimes not. But I do not have a distinctly emotional reaction pulled back on the bow and ready to shoot before I start to read. As I live with more extended members of my family, being somewhat aged, I see these preformed emotional reactions all the time. Even Adoph Hitler had some decent qualities, in old films of more personal moments, he seems almost like a regular guy. I am not implying he was a regular guy, he was one of the most destructive personalities in history, but he did have some of the humanity we all have in certain situations. Barry is not an idiot. What do you think is his strongest most positive point? What do you think is his weakest most negative characteristic? I think you are bright too. You have brought up many interesting things in these discussions. What if you were to analyse some of Barry's posts less from an emotional point of view of his intent (or your supposition of his intent) but rather from an analytical point of view about the ideas expressed, and how you could spin on those ideas. I have had the misfortune to watch some American soap operas for a few days. The people in these programs seem to be in comatose consciousness, wandering around in a world of personal interaction that has no purpose or structure, each person's world a plethora of dull emotional responses to all the others' emotional hangups. That is probably what prompted this post. For example I enjoyed Barry's post 'Sucking Others into One's Obsession'. I did not reply to it. I do not think all spiritual teachers are obsessed with what they do. For example, Adyashanti seems totally laid back, though by his own account, when younger, he was obsessed with what he now does. Suppose you took this post of Barry's (#283921) and edit it, removing what you feel is objectionable and reworking it so that the ideas expressed reflect what you think about those subjects? Edit it as if you had never heard of Barry and all that has gone on in this forum for years, as if you had gotten an assignment to rework this from a publisher or something. For some really insightful descriptions of other people, there is the fairly newly released unexpurgated version of Mark Twain's autobiography (the first third of it), 100 years after his death. A rather amazing piece of writing, with an unusual structure that seems to work in spite of its jumping all over in time and place. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm for trying to occasionally self-monitor, and when you find that the self has slipped into a lower mindstate, one involving outrage or anger or a feeling of defensiveness or strong attachment, coming back to more balanced mindstates, just as easily as one comes back to the mantra in TM. To do so doth not require a whole *lot* of effort. You just learn to recognize when the emotions are in control and you are not, and reverse the flow. Shift polarity and, instead of focusing on the minus, refocus on the plus. It can make all the difference in a conversation, and in a life. After all my years walking a spiritual path, I find that there are very few things that I can recommend to newbs on that path. I wish that there were more. But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield Bitching
I am recommending a 100% FULL REFUND of the FFL entrance fee for David. Wait...what? There isn't one? :-0 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Ah the seasonal return of the bitching about bitching post... I question the concept of you getting mired in anything you are not choosing to read. The concept of hogging so much space is misapplied in the context of forum such as this. You see contrary to some of our government leader's conception of the Internet, it is not a bunch of tubes. Choose what you read, write a bunch fascinating stuff for the rest of us to read. No one here needs to change in any way to suit our preferences. (There will be a post accusing me of doing this to you, I know.) And when you open the Bitching site please leave room for a bitching about bitching about bitching site. I will put my stuff there. (Till it gets full of my words like a houses in the Hoarders documentaries.) Totally bitch'n! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, David fiskedavid@ wrote: I am wondering whether Rick wouldn't like to start a new site called Fairfield Life Bitching for those who wear their egos on their sleeves and like to snipe at each other. Often a good series of posts begin around a spiritual experience or idea and soon the usual suspects start in on each other and instead of having a decent discussion one finds oneself mired in repartees and point scoring. Sometimes this is amusing but if short of time rather irritating and lowers the tone of what is supposed to be an exploration of spiritual ideas. When posts become personal you could just write I am dumping on give name and direct interested folk to the Bitching Site. I think this would allow others to read better motivated material. The Bitching site might become popular. It can amusing to read repartee but only if one has the time; like forwarded jokes!. Also I think some people should write each other directly. Mark's post got excessive long replies from someone, replies that made me ask obvious questions but avoiding the personal didn't and frankly were in the nature of raves that should have gone to Mark directly rather than hogging so much space. And while griping can't people delete all the posts before they make their own. David.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: [...] If the requirement is true, then the current evidence is everyone has failed miserably to attain enlightenment. Thus SRM, the world plan and its successors are a total failure. Why is that? Development of world consciousness to the point where true Unity is possible may be a multi-generational task. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: RC, MUC, and RUC
The mistake of the intellect isn't called a mistake because it is voluntary... L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brahman@ wrote: The responses to my post about Robin Carlson were interesting. They revolve around a central theme, how unity consciousness is defined. Range of responses: * RC was in a false UC, dubbed by Vaj-ji as Maharishi UC (MUC). * MUC is *real* UC (RUC) but Robin was in a false version of it. * RC was in MUC *AND* MUC is RUC, but MUC comes and goes, so RC being back in waking state is no big deal. That group ignores RC's claim that he intentionally forced himself out of MUC rather than having slipped out of it as a matter of course. They also discount Maharishi's implied teaching that MUC, though it can be glimpsed, is achievable as a permanent state. snip * * Just to refine my position, let me reiterate that ultimately, all states of consciousness are voluntary. Therefore, it is quite possible to decide to fall from UC into a form of ignorance, or any other state one pleases. However, we don't usually *get* that all states of consciousness are voluntary until we surrender into Reality, or Brahman -- which as the One Reality IS the permanent state MMY spoke of. Brahman or Reality is not per se a state which comes and goes like the classic (and ultimately illusory) 7 states of consciousness. As Brahman includes every other state of consciousness, here it is perfectly simple to identify with any I-particle or ego-state or state of consciousness one wishes. One can even entertain beliefs as if they were real, though of course we will experience the pain of doing so, the pain or tension of holding a lie in our bodymind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: My meeting with J. Krishnamurti
And my mind at times throws up the question: Does such an encounter leave some kind of a `seed' in one, or is it just another awesome experience? I can't comment on your question of spiritual insemination (yikes!), though I can say that you had to be a willing conduit for the cosmic energy you received. When operating with universal energy, it flows, or not, just like any other energy. There are subtle natural laws that are followed, both in its transmission and even in speaking about it, just as stuff operates on the gross level we are used to. Rest assured that everyone who shook hands with JK was not treated to what he made available to you. You were able to accept it. This would've been an instantaneous feeling on his part, and so the energy came on. So it IS a validation of your willingness to accept and absorb such powerful cosmic energy and love. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, J JB789@... wrote: Hello, Since I have noticed some dialogues on J. Krishnamurti, I would share the following. The article (which I have written some years ago) was published in 'The American Yoga Journal', at their request and a Krishnamurti-teachings related magazine. Regards, JB '' My meeting with J. Krishnamurti --- I believe it was in 1982, in Switzerland, after a group meeting with J. Krishnamurti. The time had come to say goodbye. I noticed how others were very respectfully taking turns to shake his hand in farewell. For what seemed like an eternity, I was in the midst of a dilemma. On the one hand, there was the wish to touch this being and, on the other, a monologue saying, What nonsense are you up to... playing the guru game after all, aren't you? And while I was going round like a mouse trapped in a cage there was only one door, and K was standing by it suddenly I saw the situation in a sober way: simply a matter of saying goodbye to someone with whom one has spent some time; no fuss, no thoughts of expecting shaktipat (energy transference), or any other gloriously pink astral emotions. I was the last one in the queue, so there was no way out of it. I walked towards him, shook his hand and said, Thank you for this time and goodbye. Yeees, sir, he said. That was all, on the outwardly visible level. In those few seconds, the following also happened: He took my hand in his, and with his other hand, my elbow; it felt as though my whole being and its contents were being shaken into place; a current of a very high speed passed on through my hand to the rest of the body, from head to toe; it was like a good and instant shower of energy. He looked into my eyes. I've never seen such dark, large and bottomless eyes! For a split second I felt a fear similar to that of falling off a mountain precipice, as though there was a space without end, and invisible and yet perceived floods of love were pouring from his eyes. (In view of this, it's quite interesting that some people call him `dry' and `intellectual'.) I was standing there, hardly prepared for all that, and this little man, who physically did not reach higher than my chest, was definitely felt by me to be about 4 times taller than myself. Because it all happened so quickly, only when I stepped outside the room did I realize what had taken place. I had witnessed a few similar events in the company of others before I met K, but the delicacy, subtlety, purity and sobriety contained in the nature of this meeting was somehow unique. He was a rare one! I've read that even though he hardly ever talked about matters of a mystical nature, he himself said that there will not be another like him for several hundred years, the reason for this being the necessity for a body that can withstand the enormous volume of energy similar to that which passed through K's body. And my mind at times throws up the question: Does such an encounter leave some kind of a `seed' in one, or is it just another awesome experience? Maybe I'll never know, and it probably does not matter either. JB http://www.krishnamurti-denmark.dk/ (in English and Danish) http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/default.php (The official repository of the authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti) `'
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Abiding and un-abiding unity as Varying apertures in experience. Great thread here. Last month Rick Archer put up some audio files of Adyashanti here acknowledging and talking about this in the way that Adyashanti teaches. Similarly I noticed this thread too coming up in an old hymnal that I sing out of. In 500 pages of text songs of all kinds a few are deep and yearn in this theme of variability, the 'Knowledge come' and 'knowledge' lost state, as we might say. As an old Christian mystical theme describing this experience its description can come along under the term, 'acedia'. I have roped some of these hymns together in to a playlist. Rory, I should bet the old minister inside you would appreciate where this sound comes from. snip * * I thank you, and my DNA-line thanks you, Buck! :-) Could you tell me how to obtain the plug-in to listen to these? Oh yes, The files will get you to an amazing web page that has these digital files of hymns. Go to their home page and you'll see a link for the plug-in. It's small and downloads quick enough. Once you got it, that allows you to just listen through the links. It becomes a quick way to survey and learn hymn tunes. Their home page is: http://shapenote.net/index.htm mine was: https://sites.google.com/site/shapenotesingingplaylists/acedia-and-shape-note-singing
[FairfieldLife] Can You Travel Back in Time?
NO, say scientists from Hong Kong. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. http://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-scientists-show-time-travel-impossible-150026913.html However, if one includes the effects of dark energy, matter at the edge of the universe can reach the speed of light. Some scientists believe that matter at that point would freeze as in a photograph.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
Friends, You can sample some of these song at our web page. But Friends, sampling is not enough. You really should buy a copy. Buy it to hear it entirely. Buy it to appreciate and learn from its whole entirety. Listening's a technique in spiritual experience in itself, just to hear it in its entirety. It sheds light. You can Sample at: http://fairfolk.org/throne-samples However, don't wait to place your order. -Buck Friends, we have recorded the definitive modern album of old hymns on this subject. Songs of the great transition, hymns of the Bardo. Songs of Summerland. Songs of comforting hospice for the weary pilgrim of life. http://fairfolk.org/throne Right now, for only $15 you can share in and be in this knowledge. For a limited time! Act now and order yourself a copy before it becomes too late for you! Order your copy right now. http://fairfolk.org/contact All Blessings, -Buck, in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mark Landau m@... wrote: Dear, dear Robin, It's my understanding (IMU?) that, in this: And Christianity likely carried over it's understanding of reincarnation via the Judaic idea of the Gilgulim (×'××'××××), or the cycles (of souls). Vaj is quite right. I'm not a scholar but I've thought I've know for a long time that the Jews of Jesus's time, believed in reincarnation via the above, and I know that a lot of the modern Chassidim do. So, IMO, Jesus, if he actually existed, which I believe he did, would have believed in it, himself. And, since Judaism is the bedrock foundation of Christianity, reincarnation would thereby be very much part of the western traditions if it had not been excised out of the bible by the church fathers. (Though I can conceive of the possibility that they did because Jesus told them to.) Also, I have the memory of watching as my parents began to conceived me, long before the sperm could have hit the egg, a devastating experience for me. (Though I realize, of course, that all such past life/this life memories could be products of fertile imaginations, they don't intuitively feel that way to me.) m On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:19 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear PaliGap, I probably should be more careful before making an historical argument against a Western consensus for belief in reincarnation. It would have been better for me to just admit that in the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie. From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really is the case that we have lived many many individual lives before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as different individual persons until we realize that we are just the Self. Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a propositionâweaker, for instance, inside the context of how a child senses who he is and what the world is. I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case, the evidence for it would be undeniable, and the idea of there *not* being such a thing as reincarnation would have the same status (as a belief) that reincarnation has hadâin the Westâsince Christ. Although (as I point out) after the 1960's there is a much more open attitude among those not dogmatically committed to Christianity that reincarnation might be true. Of course I have no way of demonstrating the metaphysical falseness of reincarnation; after all, I lived with the presumption of the truth of reincarnation for 20 years. But what has caused me *not* to believe in reincarnation, and how I feel now in comparison to how I felt when I believed in reincarnation, makes a strong argument (for me at least) for the conviction that this idea represents a failure to intuit truthfully the design of God's creation. I don't thinkâjust spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturallyâwe live our lives as if thisâreincarnationâmust be true. Indeed it seems to me that in a fundamental way we demonstrate in everything we do consciously that we came into existence at the moment of conception, and that before this, we literally did not exist (except for being a thought inside the Creator from the beginning). Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body. If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has determined the very quality and nature of our soul.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
Willy must still be stuck in the 1970s? Even in the 1980s we had word wrap in message panes. No one should have to do any special formatting for a regular message here. I use email and Thunderbird to read and post. Not sure it if is Thunderbird or Yahoo but people will sometimes complain if the start of my post doesn't fall below the quoted. But others do that too. Most of the time I try to remember to add an extra return. One thing those retro posters who preformat are forgetting: they're posts don't format well on a smartphone which can have a *narrower* pane. The posts where people don't bother to preformat will format just fine on a smartphone email client. On 07/26/2011 09:48 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: The messages on this forum go through quite a number of different software applications, and Yahoo's own software on the forum is inconsistent in the way it handles spacing etc. Its rich-text editor has some surprising screw-ups. The screen size on which a message will display is also an unknown, anything from a cell phone displaying plain text to large monitors displaying HTML. You can reduce the width of a web browser window to something more like a normal page. As for other messy problems, I, for example, have given up trying to clean them up. I do not see the possibility of a uniform solution for everyone, unless all our software a equipment is the same. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliamswillytex@... wrote: turquoiseb: Having done What I'm for recently, I figure it's only fair to spend some time rapping about what I'm uh...less for... Well, I am against posting un-formatted, word wrap, messages that exceed one line. They are much too much work to read when displayed edge-to-edge on a 40 inch monitor, and the reply format is totally disjointed. So, I refuse to even read any more of these messy postings from MZ, TB, Curtis, and any others. From what I can see, Judy is the only informant that remembers how to format a discussion post. Go figure. Learn to format for easy reading, using the Enter key, avoid the word wrap, and maybe I'll get back to you, Turq. SNIP
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
Excellent graphics. That should get the message through the public. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
An interesting idea, Xeno, but if I were you I wouldn't count on me being surprised if someone comes of with more concise or shorter ways of expressing that or any of my cafe posts. The one you mention took me less than 15 minutes to write. I started at the beginning and whipped through it non-stop to the end, no cut-and-pasting to change the order of things, no editing. It's literally a reflection of my train of thought during that 15 minute period. Then I walked home from the cafe, did a short, cursory pass to check for spelling errors, and sent it off. As someone said recently about writing, I'm sorry this was so long; I didn't have time to make it shorter. But seeing a shorter or more concise version of one of my posts will have zero effect on future ones. I get off on the flow of such writing, just sitting there and allowing ideas to come through me, with as little me in the way as possible. That is not likely to ever change for anything I write to the Internet, because I do that kind of writing for FUN. For something I'm writing for publication, I would and do take a very different approach. But thanks for, in a post mainly talking about me, reminding folks that Hitler had his good qualities, too. I'm sure that'll help. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I think Barry's writing is more nuanced than you give him credit for. He does have a definite style, but within that style there is a lot of variety. Sometimes I find Barry's mode of expression really annoying, but he is not the cause of that annoyance, it is a projection of my own mind. We all have depth and we all have shallow pools where we fall short of greatness, which probably far more often than we realise because when we create something, even a post here, we see what is most like us and that is a kind of faux unity, and it is natural be enamoured of what we have done and skip over faults to which we are blind. Your reaction to Barry has a large emotional component, you are trying set something right, which is your prerogative. I am not an actor, but the glory of acting is subtext, expressing what is between the lines, giving life to what otherwise would be a kind of dull repetition. Reading between the lines of a post has certain dangers because we might just be projecting unconsciously something in us, some unconscious pattern that is not in the post. Some of Barry's posts are really clean, and some have deliberate emotional land-mines woven in that can trigger our projections. This is not unique to Barry, politicians attempt to exploit emotional patterns and unconscious behaviour all the time. If this is done 'right' it can serve to wake us up to our own hidden shallow pools. For me, sometimes Barry's writing works this way, sometimes not. But I do not have a distinctly emotional reaction pulled back on the bow and ready to shoot before I start to read. As I live with more extended members of my family, being somewhat aged, I see these preformed emotional reactions all the time. Even Adoph Hitler had some decent qualities, in old films of more personal moments, he seems almost like a regular guy. I am not implying he was a regular guy, he was one of the most destructive personalities in history, but he did have some of the humanity we all have in certain situations. Barry is not an idiot. What do you think is his strongest most positive point? What do you think is his weakest most negative characteristic? I think you are bright too. You have brought up many interesting things in these discussions. What if you were to analyse some of Barry's posts less from an emotional point of view of his intent (or your supposition of his intent) but rather from an analytical point of view about the ideas expressed, and how you could spin on those ideas. I have had the misfortune to watch some American soap operas for a few days. The people in these programs seem to be in comatose consciousness, wandering around in a world of personal interaction that has no purpose or structure, each person's world a plethora of dull emotional responses to all the others' emotional hangups. That is probably what prompted this post. For example I enjoyed Barry's post 'Sucking Others into One's Obsession'. I did not reply to it. I do not think all spiritual teachers are obsessed with what they do. For example, Adyashanti seems totally laid back, though by his own account, when younger, he was obsessed with what he now does. Suppose you took this post of Barry's (#283921) and edit it, removing what you feel is objectionable and reworking it so that the ideas expressed reflect what you think about those subjects? Edit it as if you had never heard of Barry and all that has gone on in this forum for years, as if you had gotten an assignment to rework this from a publisher or something. For some really insightful descriptions of other people, there is the fairly newly released unexpurgated version of
[FairfieldLife] Re: RC, MUC, and RUC
Right, that's why I said, *ultimately* all states of consciousness are voluntary. This is not at all evident when one believes (mistakenly) one is solely an ego or soul stuck inside a Reality not of one's own making. Then we are identifying solely with the creature end of our creator-creature dynamic. A creature's state of consciousness depends entirely upon the (voluntary) attention (or lack of attention) or grace-flow of that creature's creator. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: The mistake of the intellect isn't called a mistake because it is voluntary... L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brahman@ wrote: The responses to my post about Robin Carlson were interesting. They revolve around a central theme, how unity consciousness is defined. Range of responses: * RC was in a false UC, dubbed by Vaj-ji as Maharishi UC (MUC). * MUC is *real* UC (RUC) but Robin was in a false version of it. * RC was in MUC *AND* MUC is RUC, but MUC comes and goes, so RC being back in waking state is no big deal. That group ignores RC's claim that he intentionally forced himself out of MUC rather than having slipped out of it as a matter of course. They also discount Maharishi's implied teaching that MUC, though it can be glimpsed, is achievable as a permanent state. snip * * Just to refine my position, let me reiterate that ultimately, all states of consciousness are voluntary. Therefore, it is quite possible to decide to fall from UC into a form of ignorance, or any other state one pleases. However, we don't usually *get* that all states of consciousness are voluntary until we surrender into Reality, or Brahman -- which as the One Reality IS the permanent state MMY spoke of. Brahman or Reality is not per se a state which comes and goes like the classic (and ultimately illusory) 7 states of consciousness. As Brahman includes every other state of consciousness, here it is perfectly simple to identify with any I-particle or ego-state or state of consciousness one wishes. One can even entertain beliefs as if they were real, though of course we will experience the pain of doing so, the pain or tension of holding a lie in our bodymind.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More for
My question to you would be why do you expect people to have the time to read it? I guess you feel most FFLers are unemployed and don't do anything but hang out on FFL all day. I have to meter my reading here. Most of the time I have to scan through your posts to see what the hell you're rambling about today. The second question is it ego that makes you feel what you are saying is important enough that people should read it? That would sort of be in conflict with your Buddhist beliefs wouldn't it? Just askin'. To be fair I can write long posts too and wrote a long one yesterday and finished with saying that I wrote too much again. I do that with emails to friends too. Like you I seem to be connected to the keyboard and can type very fast so a short email to someone can be paragraphs long. But what really irritates me here is someone who can't format their writing in terms of breaking it into paragraphs. You know, the wall of words thing. And some of these people claim to have graduate degrees? Once the CEO at the company I worked out sent out an email that was a wall of words. The director of writing had a real hard time trying to figure out how he was going to suggest to the guy to break his thoughts into paragraphs for easier reading. We wondered how the CEO ever got an MBA. :-D On 07/26/2011 12:15 PM, turquoiseb wrote: An interesting idea, Xeno, but if I were you I wouldn't count on me being surprised if someone comes of with more concise or shorter ways of expressing that or any of my cafe posts. The one you mention took me less than 15 minutes to write. I started at the beginning and whipped through it non-stop to the end, no cut-and-pasting to change the order of things, no editing. It's literally a reflection of my train of thought during that 15 minute period. Then I walked home from the cafe, did a short, cursory pass to check for spelling errors, and sent it off. As someone said recently about writing, I'm sorry this was so long; I didn't have time to make it shorter. But seeing a shorter or more concise version of one of my posts will have zero effect on future ones. I get off on the flow of such writing, just sitting there and allowing ideas to come through me, with as little me in the way as possible. That is not likely to ever change for anything I write to the Internet, because I do that kind of writing for FUN. For something I'm writing for publication, I would and do take a very different approach. But thanks for, in a post mainly talking about me, reminding folks that Hitler had his good qualities, too. I'm sure that'll help. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I think Barry's writing is more nuanced than you give him credit for. He does have a definite style, but within that style there is a lot of variety. Sometimes I find Barry's mode of expression really annoying, but he is not the cause of that annoyance, it is a projection of my own mind. We all have depth and we all have shallow pools where we fall short of greatness, which probably far more often than we realise because when we create something, even a post here, we see what is most like us and that is a kind of faux unity, and it is natural be enamoured of what we have done and skip over faults to which we are blind. Your reaction to Barry has a large emotional component, you are trying set something right, which is your prerogative. I am not an actor, but the glory of acting is subtext, expressing what is between the lines, giving life to what otherwise would be a kind of dull repetition. Reading between the lines of a post has certain dangers because we might just be projecting unconsciously something in us, some unconscious pattern that is not in the post. Some of Barry's posts are really clean, and some have deliberate emotional land-mines woven in that can trigger our projections. This is not unique to Barry, politicians attempt to exploit emotional patterns and unconscious behaviour all the time. If this is done 'right' it can serve to wake us up to our own hidden shallow pools. For me, sometimes Barry's writing works this way, sometimes not. But I do not have a distinctly emotional reaction pulled back on the bow and ready to shoot before I start to read. As I live with more extended members of my family, being somewhat aged, I see these preformed emotional reactions all the time. Even Adoph Hitler had some decent qualities, in old films of more personal moments, he seems almost like a regular guy. I am not implying he was a regular guy, he was one of the most destructive personalities in history, but he did have some of the humanity we all have in certain situations. Barry is not an idiot. What do you think is his strongest most positive point? What do you think is his weakest most negative characteristic? I think you are bright too. You have brought up many interesting things
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Robin I am sure all of us who are in receipt of your lengthy replies are most flattered. I for one am not used to it. Like many here I usually push my shit out to be greeted mostly by silence. To puff myself up a bit in the small hours I sometimes turn to a comforting joke of an old friend: A lonely genius swimming against the tide of popular opinion. But dawn soon dispels that delusion. There is so much to respond to in your post. But if I may, instead of focusing on points of difference, perhaps I can highlight where I think you are absolutely spot on. This is what is means to have a subjective sense of who we are, to experience life in a way that no one else has ever done, and to know that what it is like to be me, and *to exercise our free will*, is not the experience nor has it ever been the experience of any other human being. All this points towards the holiness of personal experience, and the importance and primacy of the individual person. Great stuff! And the Gerald Manley Hopkins you have quoted: ..when I consider my selfbeing, my consciousness and feeling of myself, that taste of myself, of *I* and *me* above and in all things, which is more distinctive than the taste of ale or alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or camphor, as is incommunicable by any means to another man (as when I was a child I used to ask myself: What must it be to be someone else?). Nothing else in nature comes near to this unspeakable stress of pitch, distinctiveness, and selving, this selfbeing of my own. Nothing explains it or resembles it, except so far as this, that other men to themselves have the same feeling, But this only multiplies the phenomenon to be explained so far as the cases are like and do resemble. But to me there is no resemblance:searching nature I taste *self* but at one tankard, that of my own being, The development, refinement, condensation of nothing shows any sign of being able to match this to me or give me another taste of it, a taste even resembling it. I know poets are more fun, but I wonder if you have come across the modern philosopher Thomas Nagel's What is it like to be a bat?. http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Mind you I am curious as to whether you would be happy allowing the same God-given 'i-ness' of humans to be granted to animals? I have to tell you in all my life I have never *gotten* the Christian attitude to Nature and her creatures. If we are to go with this for-itself, this irreducible subjectivity as the ultimate unit of spiritual currency - why is Christianity so exclusively focused on humans?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
The problem with the pubic is that the only people who seem to care are those who are unemployed or having a tough time financially. The presently employed seem to care less unless they are worried about being one pay check away from disaster. They avoid focusing on economic and political issue and focus on sports, their kids soccer games and what they're planning for the party next weekend. They prefer to reading the distractions that the MSM throws at them like the Amy Whitehouse death (which is still getting top headline space). Maybe when we get Wiemar Republic food price inflation will they begin to pay attention. On 07/26/2011 11:45 AM, John wrote: Excellent graphics. That should get the message through the public. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoisebno_reply@... wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
[FairfieldLife] Re: alternative theory regarding MZ
* * Oh, this is so beautiful, Doug. Many thanks; you have given us the keys to the Kingdom! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Oh yes, The files will get you to an amazing web page that has these digital files of hymns. Go to their home page and you'll see a link for the plug-in. It's small and downloads quick enough. Once you got it, that allows you to just listen through the links. It becomes a quick way to survey and learn hymn tunes. Their home page is: http://shapenote.net/index.htm mine was: https://sites.google.com/site/shapenotesingingplaylists/acedia-and-shape-note-singing
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: My question to you would be why do you expect people to have the time to read it? My question to you would be, What part of 'I write for FUN' did you not understand? I *don't* expect people to read it, especially those with as short an attention span as you have admitted to having. I write for the sheer FUN of it. I also write like this -- cafe rants -- when I'm working on a longer project and either need some- thing to prime the pump and get the writing flow started, or as a break between spurts of more serious writing. What you think of what I write, or even whether you read it at all, does not affect me in any way. I write because I write. It's what I do. Might I suggest you focus more on doing what you do?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
The unemployed and those in financial distress are looking for a new job and financial assistance. The national debt and the budget deficit are the last things in their mind. On the other hand, the responsible citizens should be the ones who would lead the country to the best direction financially and economically. They're the ones who should tell their politicians what to do in terms of responsible management of the government assets and transactions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: The problem with the pubic is that the only people who seem to care are those who are unemployed or having a tough time financially. The presently employed seem to care less unless they are worried about being one pay check away from disaster. They avoid focusing on economic and political issue and focus on sports, their kids soccer games and what they're planning for the party next weekend. They prefer to reading the distractions that the MSM throws at them like the Amy Whitehouse death (which is still getting top headline space). Maybe when we get Wiemar Republic food price inflation will they begin to pay attention. On 07/26/2011 11:45 AM, John wrote: Excellent graphics. That should get the message through the public. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoisebno_reply@ wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
So Barry's a Tea Partier. Who knew? Willytex and Mike Dixon will be thrilled to have him on their side. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, Feeling is right. It's designed to be scary, but not to communicate any useful information as to how much of a problem the national debt is, much less what, if anything, should be done about it, at least at present. and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. Resistance to raising the debt ceiling is, like the graphic, based on emotion, not information. This is a graphic that will appeal to know-nothing right-wingers, but that those with any knowledge about the economy will recognize as the bullshit it is. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. One informed commenter on this graphic pointed out some of what's wrong with it: The US GDP per year is 14.12 Trillion dollars. Our debt is currently around 80%-90% of GDP. During the great depression we were over 120%. In addition, what this graph doesn't tell you is that they're comparing the projected cost of all those services for UNDISCLOSED amount of time. Do you have enough money to pay your bills 15 or 20 years in advance? While I agree that we have to watch where we put our money, this infographic is alarmist and stupid. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Um, no, it makes no sense to compare the U.S. economy with that of the PIIGs. Apples and cabbages. 100% debt- to-GDP ratio does not automatically mean bankruptcy; that depends on many other factors. Just as a for- instance, the interest rate on Greek bonds is more than 5 times that on U.S. bonds; and unlike Greece, the U.S. has its own currency. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble. Not. The only reason it's a big pile 'o trouble is that it's being misrepresented by the GOP (with Obama's assistance) so as to coerce budget cuts that will punish the poor, the elderly, and the middle class while increasing the profits of corporations and the wealthy-- and that will, in the long run, *increase* the deficit. The *last* thing we need to be doing right now is taking money out of the economy. Government spending desperately needs to be increased until the economy is on its feet again. *Then* we can start looking at reducing the deficit, because we'll have the means to do so without inflicting such massive suffering. There is no, repeat, NO justification for not increasing the debt ceiling. There is no, repeat, NO basis for panicking about the deficit. It would have to get much, *much* bigger before it became unmanageable. (And just by the way, Barry, if you're going to abbreviate of, you need to write o', not 'o. The apostrophe stands for the missing f.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife] ZomGas 1 (was Zombie in My Gas Tank)
Dear Mr. Price, Seeing as how Sal's intelligence, good humor, and wisdom is exceeded only by her beauty, I was wondering if you might consider reversing your format and provide 20 answers to which Sal can produce the questions? We may find some kinda ZombieTantric develop. Thank you for your time and give my best to your wife. Warmly, Azgrey --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Sal, I'm wondering if you might consider being my next guest on ZomGas? I could send you the 20 questions without the answers. The questions beg for pithy answers which I know are right up your alley. On FFL,we have plastic enlightenment, editors using urban dictionaries, men wearing lipstick and women referring to male genitalia they can't seem to find. IMO, some of this stuff is getting a bit old hat, but plastic sexism thats something brand sp**king new and ZomGas wants to own this topic. What do you say? From: Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:01:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ZomGas 1 (was Zombie in My Gas Tank)  On Jul 22, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Bob Price wrote: I apologize in advance for the excessively loquacious nature of this post, I asked the wife what that meant and she said: If you don't want to be thought of a pompous ass, just say you're being a Chatty Cathy. In which case you'll be  thought of as a sexist pig instead.  Which might be a step up. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FairfieldLife] ZomGas 1 (was Zombie in My Gas Tank)
On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:31 PM, azgrey wrote: Dear Mr. Price, Seeing as how Sal's intelligence, good humor, and wisdom is exceeded only by her beauty, Now you're talkin'. I was wondering if you might consider reversing your format and provide 20 answers to which Sal can produce the questions? Much more sensible. We may find some kinda ZombieTantric develop. In this heat? (snicker) I got a feeling even the zombies are wilting. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
Bhairitu: Maybe when we get Wiemar Republic food price inflation will they begin to pay attention... Maybe so, but there have been very few revolutions in history because the people didn't have any food. Being hungry and weak actually makes people more dependent on the government, not less! So, your President Barack Obama drafted a national budget and it was defeated in Congress 97 to 0. So, where is the President's plan to reduce spending and bring down the national debt? 'Obama's $3.7 Trillion Budget Calls for Military Spending Increases and Deep Cuts to Social Service Programs' http://tinyurl.com/4yhqtrt Deal with the tough choices we face now, on our own terms, rather than wait until we are at the mercy of foreign creditors. His recommended plan of attack: Don't raise the debt ceiling; slash spending... Ron Paul's Straight Talk on the National Debt Ceiling: http://tinyurl.com/3kt2wn9
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
Xenophaneros: The messages on this forum go through quite a number of different software applications, and Yahoo's own software on the forum is inconsistent in the way it handles spacing etc. Its rich-text editor has some surprising screw-ups. The screen size on which a message will display is also an unknown, anything from a cell phone displaying plain text to large monitors displaying HTML. You can reduce the width of a web browser window to something more like a normal page. As for other messy problems, I, for example, have given up trying to clean them up. I do not see the possibility of a uniform solution for everyone, unless all our software a equipment is the same. All you have to do is key in about ten words, and then hit the Enter key after each line. It's that simple. Having done What I'm for recently, I figure it's only fair to spend some time rapping about what I'm uh...less for... Well, I am against posting un-formatted, word wrap, messages that exceed one line. They are much too much work to read when displayed edge-to-edge on a 40 inch monitor, and the reply format is totally disjointed. So, I refuse to even read any more of these messy postings from MZ, TB, Curtis, and any others. From what I can see, Judy is the only informant that remembers how to format a discussion post. Go figure. Learn to format for easy reading, using the Enter key, avoid the word wrap, and maybe I'll get back to you, Turq. SNIP
[FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
Bhairitu: Willy must still be stuck in the 1970s? All you have to do is hit the ENTER key after about ten words. Why is that so hard to understand? You might also consider using a double space to break up paragraphs - that would make these long post a lot easier to read. Forget the rich text, who cares about that? Turq knows this - he used to be one of the posters who formatted every post for easy reading. Now he is just too lazy, I guess. Or, maybe he wanted his posts to look like MZ's. Go figure. SNIPED the un-formated mess
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
Thanks, Xeno, but I'm not playing, for a couple of reasons. Just for one thing, I don't think it's an accident that you've picked the female side of this long-running dispute to characterize as having a large emotional component. I decline to cooperate with that perspective. For another thing, you're tuned in to only a small fraction of the history involved, so you're not getting the full picture. I don't think there's anything you can do about that, but it leaves your analysis significantly off-balance. But maybe if you were to write a similar critique of how Barry reacts to me, that would help a bit with the balance, and I might rethink my willingness to participate. Finally, I have to wonder if you picked the wrong post of mine to use as the basis of your commentary. It was a simple observation about the hypocrisy of Barry's post in light of things he's said previously. I fail to see how that could be construed as anything but analytical, and his post sure didn't involve much in the way of nuance in that regard. As to Barry's strongest, most postive point, I'd have to say that whatever positive points he may have, he doesn't choose to display them on FFL. And I'd be hard put to single out his weakest, most negative characteristic. I guess I'd put dishonesty and hypocrisy at the top of the list, but perhaps both of these, and most of if not all the rest, are functions of his lack of self-knowledge. So maybe that belongs at the top. (Just as an aside, it's interesting that Barry understood you to be asking me to *condense* his Sucking Others into One's Obsessions post rather than reworking it to reflect my own ideas on the subject. Not only does he write too quickly to develop his thinking coherently, he reads too quickly to absorb what posters are actually saying.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I think Barry's writing is more nuanced than you give him credit for. He does have a definite style, but within that style there is a lot of variety. Sometimes I find Barry's mode of expression really annoying, but he is not the cause of that annoyance, it is a projection of my own mind. We all have depth and we all have shallow pools where we fall short of greatness, which probably far more often than we realise because when we create something, even a post here, we see what is most like us and that is a kind of faux unity, and it is natural be enamoured of what we have done and skip over faults to which we are blind. Your reaction to Barry has a large emotional component, you are trying set something right, which is your prerogative. I am not an actor, but the glory of acting is subtext, expressing what is between the lines, giving life to what otherwise would be a kind of dull repetition. Reading between the lines of a post has certain dangers because we might just be projecting unconsciously something in us, some unconscious pattern that is not in the post. Some of Barry's posts are really clean, and some have deliberate emotional land-mines woven in that can trigger our projections. This is not unique to Barry, politicians attempt to exploit emotional patterns and unconscious behaviour all the time. If this is done 'right' it can serve to wake us up to our own hidden shallow pools. For me, sometimes Barry's writing works this way, sometimes not. But I do not have a distinctly emotional reaction pulled back on the bow and ready to shoot before I start to read. As I live with more extended members of my family, being somewhat aged, I see these preformed emotional reactions all the time. Even Adoph Hitler had some decent qualities, in old films of more personal moments, he seems almost like a regular guy. I am not implying he was a regular guy, he was one of the most destructive personalities in history, but he did have some of the humanity we all have in certain situations. Barry is not an idiot. What do you think is his strongest most positive point? What do you think is his weakest most negative characteristic? I think you are bright too. You have brought up many interesting things in these discussions. What if you were to analyse some of Barry's posts less from an emotional point of view of his intent (or your supposition of his intent) but rather from an analytical point of view about the ideas expressed, and how you could spin on those ideas. I have had the misfortune to watch some American soap operas for a few days. The people in these programs seem to be in comatose consciousness, wandering around in a world of personal interaction that has no purpose or structure, each person's world a plethora of dull emotional responses to all the others' emotional hangups. That is probably what prompted this post. For example I enjoyed Barry's post 'Sucking Others into One's Obsession'. I did not reply to it. I do not think all spiritual teachers are obsessed with
[FairfieldLife] Re: More for
Soul monad? MMY was not conversant with Gottfried Leibniz's Le Monadologie, much less with the parlance of Gottfried de Purucker's Theosophical books. If he actually used the term then it was one he got from his SRM days with Charlie Lutts. However, I think MMY did not use the term. The Sanskrit word jiva doesn't translate into the English term soul-monad. You will of course furnish the evidence that MMY actually used the term as a translation of a word in Sanskrit. .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: But one of the things that I can wholeheartedly recommend is that the minimal effort expended to prefer Self to self-importance in activity might be worth the expense... authfriend: As a practitioner of this technique, do you really think that the behavior you exhibit, presumably as a result of the practice, would encourage anybody to take it up themselves? There are two key phrases here: TB and TM. A True Believer (TB) believes in MMY's soul-monad theory of the Self and believes in Transcendental Meditation (TM). Barry is a TB and apparently he still believes in the TM. TM is to prefer the Self in activity, and Barry is the TurquoiseB (TB). Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
On 07/26/2011 01:43 PM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: Bhairitu: Maybe when we get Wiemar Republic food price inflation will they begin to pay attention... Maybe so, but there have been very few revolutions in history because the people didn't have any food. French and Bolshevik revolutions were about food shortages. You obviously don't know history so you'll be doomed to relive it. In Russia people were only able to get a small amount of bread while the farms were shipping wheat out of the country. Being hungry and weak actually makes people more dependent on the government, not less! Ever heard of the Twinkie defense? So, your President Barack Obama drafted a national budget and it was defeated in Congress 97 to 0. Congress is loaded with Republican terrorists. So, where is the President's plan to reduce spending and bring down the national debt? Stop the wars was what he originally said. 'Obama's $3.7 Trillion Budget Calls for Military Spending Increases and Deep Cuts to Social Service Programs' Let's not call it Obama's Budget. It is Wall Street's. They want you broke and hungry, Willy. http://tinyurl.com/4yhqtrt Deal with the tough choices we face now, on our own terms, rather than wait until we are at the mercy of foreign creditors. His recommended plan of attack: Don't raise the debt ceiling; slash spending... Ron Paul's Straight Talk on the National Debt Ceiling: http://tinyurl.com/3kt2wn9
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt
So where are the responsible citizens? I sure don't see any. Just a bunch of Republican terrorists who want to destroy the country so their bankster cronies can buy it for pennies on the dollar. Can't wait to see the chickens come home to roost (i.e. karma) on that one. On 07/26/2011 01:15 PM, John wrote: The unemployed and those in financial distress are looking for a new job and financial assistance. The national debt and the budget deficit are the last things in their mind. On the other hand, the responsible citizens should be the ones who would lead the country to the best direction financially and economically. They're the ones who should tell their politicians what to do in terms of responsible management of the government assets and transactions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: The problem with the pubic is that the only people who seem to care are those who are unemployed or having a tough time financially. The presently employed seem to care less unless they are worried about being one pay check away from disaster. They avoid focusing on economic and political issue and focus on sports, their kids soccer games and what they're planning for the party next weekend. They prefer to reading the distractions that the MSM throws at them like the Amy Whitehouse death (which is still getting top headline space). Maybe when we get Wiemar Republic food price inflation will they begin to pay attention. On 07/26/2011 11:45 AM, John wrote: Excellent graphics. That should get the message through the public. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoisebno_reply@ wrote: This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives us a feeling for what the term national debt means, and why there might just be a resistance to increasing it. It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion, and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of money that the US government knows that it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack that measures a football field on each side, is taller than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade Center. http://www.wtfnoway.com/ The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved. Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What I'm against
On 07/26/2011 01:59 PM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: Bhairitu: Willy must still be stuck in the 1970s? All you have to do is hit the ENTER key after about ten words. Why is that so hard to understand? You might also consider using a double space to break up paragraphs - that would make these long post a lot easier to read. Forget the rich text, who cares about that? Turq knows this - he used to be one of the posters who formatted every post for easy reading. Now he is just too lazy, I guess. Or, maybe he wanted his posts to look like MZ's. Go figure. SNIPED the un-formated mess I don't use rich text. I use simple text on Thunderbird. Using the ENTER key is SO retro. That is why I said you're still stuck in the 1970s. Let the resizable window format for you.
