[FairfieldLife] Was Gautama Buddha a Shaka??
From The Legend of King Vikrama, Introduction:
In addition to being an exemplary king, he [Vikrama -- card]
is also said to have liberated India from the rule of the
Shakas [CDSL: zaka -- card] or foreigners.
CDSL:
zaka3 m. pl. N. of a partic. whiteskinned tribe or race of people (in the
legends which relate the contests between Vasisht2ha and Vis3vamitra the S3akas
are fabled to have been produced by the Cow of Vasisht2ha , from her sweat ,
for the destruction of Vis3va1mitra's army ; in Mn. x , 44 , they are mentioned
together with the Paun2d2rakas , Od2ras , Dravid2as , Ka1mbojas , Javanas or
Yavanas , Pa1radas , Pahlavas , Ci1nas , Kira1tas , Daradas , and Khas3as ,
described by Kullu1ka as degraded tribes of Kshatriyas called after the
districts in which they reside: according to the VP. iv , 3 , king Sagara
attempted to rid his kingdom of these tribes , but did not succeed in
destroying them all: they are sometimes regarded as the followers of S3aka or
S3a1li-va1hana , and are probably to be identified with the Tartars or
Indo-Scythians [Lat. %{saca}] who overran India before the A1ryans , and were
conquered by the great Vikrama7ditya [q.v.] ; they really seem to have been
dominant in the north-west of India in the last century before and the first
two centuries after the beginning of our era) AV.Paris3. Mn. MBh. c. ; a king
of the S3akas g. %{kambojA7di} (on Pa1n2. 4-1 , 175 Va1rtt.) ; an era , epoch
(cf. %{-kAla}) ; a year (of any era) Inscr. ; a partic. fragrant substance Gal.
zAkya [ = Shaakya -- card] mfn. derived or descended from the S3akas [ =
zakas -- card] (= %{zakA@abhijano@'sya}) g. %{zaNDikA7di} ; m. N. of a tribe of
landowners and Kshatriyas in Kapila-vastu (from whom Gautama , the founder of
Buddhism , was descended) Buddh. MWB. 21 , 22 ; N. of Gautama Buddha himself
Nya1yam. ; of his father S3uddhodana (son of Sam2jaya) Pur. ; a Buddhist
mendicant VarBr2S. ; patr. fr. %{zaka} g. %{gargA7di} ; patr. fr. %{zAka} , or
%{zAkin} g. %{kurv-Adi}.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, I think we can safely rule that possibility out! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his compassion and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and say Bah than it is to get into their obsessions with them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his sores and turn away, Curtis says, Wow...that's really a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one, and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if there were at least one person out there in cyberspace who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with. It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, but I think it's neat that he does it. The average post here is maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125. While this might be his longest to date, it's hardly an aberration. I don't get it. Too bad MDG is no longer here to explain how and why someone would take the trouble, day after day, to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost complete strangers. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Experience of Enlightenment
You ARE enlightened. I have similar stories with my glasses as I come late to wearing them (i.e., middle age). I clean them with whatever shirt I am wearing most times or water and kleenex or hand sanitizer if I happen to have any. They are not prescription. I lose them and break them on a regular basis. I have spent hundreds of dollars on replacing them over the last few years. I now buy in bulk and should keep a pair in the car, a couple in my purse, one under my pillow, one in the kitchen, bathroom, by the TV, etc. I lose them faster than I can do this. If I wear sunglasses while walking, I have to carry my eyeglasses in my other hand. I don't wear them swimming. I do not understand why the font on websites and little icons on computer programs are so damn little...how are we supposed to see the links or use InDesign, for example. I am purchasing a magnifying glass as I cannot thread a needle, at the very least, or read the names of places in my atlas. I often realize, like at this very moment, that I am again looking through a fog. My vision is deteriorating and I don't have vision insurance, but I've been thinking that if I get a real pair and take really good care of them the proper way, I'll be less frustrated. After reading your story, I'm not sure about this. However, I DO want to feel enlightened! P.S. Does this qualify as a spiritual post? From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Experience of Enlightenment Two years ago I got a new pair of glasses, and I vowed to take care of them. Previously I would clean my glasses with Windex and any cloth which was around. With this pair I only used the ultra soft cloth and recommended glass cleaner. Still after two years they got so scratched that I could barely see through them. (I think it was due to swimming in swimming pools with chlorine) I finally got around to getting a new pair, and it feels like an experience of enlightenment. Everything looks different. Everything is clear and crisp. It makes me feel like I am enlightened.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President?
This redeems your other post, barely. From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President? Why do people say 'Grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding! -- Actress Betty White.
Re: [FairfieldLife] I defy anyone to say it more succinctly than this
Now you have to say why, which probably won't be succinct. Did you like Rick's response better, btw? From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] I defy anyone to say it more succinctly than this BS. On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:21 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: [ for the image-impaired ] You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body. - C. S. Lewis
Re: [FairfieldLife] Experience of Enlightenment
Spiritual yes, but myopic :-) On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com wrote: You ARE enlightened. I have similar stories with my glasses as I come late to wearing them (i.e., middle age). I clean them with whatever shirt I am wearing most times or water and kleenex or hand sanitizer if I happen to have any. They are not prescription. I lose them and break them on a regular basis. I have spent hundreds of dollars on replacing them over the last few years. I now buy in bulk and should keep a pair in the car, a couple in my purse, one under my pillow, one in the kitchen, bathroom, by the TV, etc. I lose them faster than I can do this. If I wear sunglasses while walking, I have to carry my eyeglasses in my other hand. I don't wear them swimming. I do not understand why the font on websites and little icons on computer programs are so damn little...how are we supposed to see the links or use InDesign, for example. I am purchasing a magnifying glass as I cannot thread a needle, at the very least, or read the names of places in my atlas. I often realize, like at this very moment, that I am again looking through a fog. My vision is deteriorating and I don't have vision insurance, but I've been thinking that if I get a real pair and take really good care of them the proper way, I'll be less frustrated. After reading your story, I'm not sure about this. However, I DO want to feel enlightened! P.S. Does this qualify as a spiritual post? From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Experience of Enlightenment Two years ago I got a new pair of glasses, and I vowed to take care of them. Previously I would clean my glasses with Windex and any cloth which was around. With this pair I only used the ultra soft cloth and recommended glass cleaner. Still after two years they got so scratched that I could barely see through them. (I think it was due to swimming in swimming pools with chlorine) I finally got around to getting a new pair, and it feels like an experience of enlightenment. Everything looks different. Everything is clear and crisp. It makes me feel like I am enlightened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words, and many others, haha, and at that point, there is no need for someone like me to step in because she called it and many times rightfully so. (Judy is goddess to me.) I am sure if I was hanging out in Amsterdam with the Turq, at a coffee house, rolling a...uh, whatever they have to roll there, and I said I had to take my 20, he may roll his eyes, at the same time respect my time into the Transcendence, as I feel that what works for me. I do not live TM like a cult and if other's do, that is their problem and not mine. : ) Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set, yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally. What you are really listing are the people on FFL who don't threaten lil' Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: LOL. I like your paragraph about this being an intimidating place. My perspective is different. I think it's only an intimidating place for those who feel as if they have an image that needs protecting. Those who have a more fluid personality, and feel no need to con- stantly defend themselves and their view of who and what they are don't seem to find it intimidating at all. In that ilk I include notables such as Curtis, you, Alex, Rick, Marek, Sal, Susan/wayback, tartbrain, Denise, Xeno, and many others, who never seem to worry about it. The ability to just be oneself seems to be its own reward.
Re: [FairfieldLife] I defy anyone to say it more succinctly than this
Well because words can never convey the truth it's all BS. On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com wrote: Now you have to say why, which probably won't be succinct. Did you like Rick's response better, btw? From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] I defy anyone to say it more succinctly than this BS. On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:21 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: [ for the image-impaired ] You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body. - C. S. Lewis
[FairfieldLife] Another Dutch success -- dealing with teen sexuality
The family in the house next door to mine couldn't possibly be more Christian and clean-cut. But when their daughters became old enough to want to have boyfriends and have sex with them, the parents reacted as noted in the article below. The daughters are now in their 20s, still close with their parents, and among the most well-adjusted, poised young women I've ever met. If they'd grown up in America statistically they'd be pregnant, have STDs, and be on drugs by now. Vive la difference! Solving America's teen sex problem http://www.salon.com/2011/10/30/solving_americas_teen_sex_problem/singl\ etonThe Dutch have dramatically reduced adolescent pregnancies, abortions and STDs. What do they know that we don't?By Thomas Rogers http://www.salon.com/writer/thomas_rogers/ When 16-year-old Natalie first started dating her boyfriend, her mother did something that would mortify most American parents: She took her to the doctor's office to get her contraceptives. Her mother wasn't weirded out by the fact that her teen daughter was about to have sex in fact, she fully supported it. She merely wanted to make sure that she was doing it safely, and responsibly. A couple of months later, when it finally happened, her parents were totally accepting. As her father put it, sixteen is a beautiful age to lose your virginity. If that seems like an unfamiliar attitude toward sex and parenting, it might have something to do with the fact that Natalie's parents aren't American they're Dutch. They are one of dozens of Dutch families interviewed by Amy T. Schalet, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in her new book, Not Under My Roof. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/not-under-my-roof-amy-t-schalet/1102669\ 963 Schalet's book compares the sexual attitudes of American and Dutch parents and her findings are nothing short of staggering: Whereas most American parents panic about the idea of allowing their kids to have sex with other kids under their roof, for many Dutch parents, it's not only fine it's responsible parenting. As Schalet's extensively researched, fascinating work shows, the Netherlands' radically different approach to sex and child-rearing has managed to radically decrease levels of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexual infections. It has fostered closer relationships between teenagers and their parents, and helped make teenagers' first times far more pleasurable. Not Under My Roof is a startling wake-up call about America's largely misguided attitudes toward sex and growing up. Salon spoke to Schalet over the phone about the sexual revolution, America's slut problem and how the new generation is changing our attitudes toward sex. As you point out in the book, the statistical differences between American and Dutch teens when it comes to sex is pretty staggering. Yes. The pregnancy rate is about four times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands and abortion rates are about twice as high. HIV rates are about three times higher. Growing up in the Netherlands, I didn't actually know of any teenagers who became pregnant as teens. Whenever I say that to Americans they're always very surprised. But as you point out in the book, it's not because American adolescents are having way more sex it's because the culture around sex is so different, and it's especially ironic because people think America was so utterly transformed by the sexual revolution. Why didn't those cultural changes filter down to the way we think about teens and sex? That's the million-dollar question. When the sexual revolution did happen [in the Netherlands], contraception was made very widely and easily available, including to teenagers so the teenage pregnancy rate really dropped. In the Netherlands, there's the belief that young people are capable of recognizing when they're ready and self-regulating as opposed to the notion that they have raging hormones that are out of control. There's the belief that young people can fall in love and that their sexuality is anchored in relationships so it becomes easier to accept and normalize relationships from about 16 to 17 onwards. And finally there's been an attempt on the part of Dutch parents and the authorities to say, This is happening, and we need to keep it from being secretive. We need to be able to keep control and be able to recommend that young people use contraception and see who they're becoming involved with. That seems counterintuitive to many Americans because they associate sexual freedom with things going totally awry. In the U.S., there was a strong counterreaction to the changes of the 1960s and '70s. The religious right organized, and sexuality, especially teen sexuality, became a political issue. But regular people also feel the same way and think that teen sexuality is out of control. In the U.S. there's a belief that, when it comes to
[FairfieldLife] Re: A History Lesson
...the sooner we decide to roll up our sleeves and get back to work instead of looking for bankers to blame, the better our chances of coming back. Denise Evans: His statement was a stereotypical corporate executive denial statement Herman Cain, of Godfather's Pizza, created jobs for Americans. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work creating thousands of jobs. Herman Cain is not responsible for current U.S. Government policy for U.S. corporations. I guess authoring corporate policy regulations is the responsibilty of the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress. It is not that Wall Street is completely innocent, but what the Occupy movement, and their intellectual leaders, fail to grasp is that the federal government has been Wall Street's partner in crime! The Hill Poll: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/129933/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com wrote: This redeems your other post, barely. -- *From:* Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President? Why do people say 'Grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding! -- Actress Betty White. Of course I come to FFL for redemption. You see I don't exist, I don't have merit, I cannot survive without the approval of others. Yeah, really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A History Lesson
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM, richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com wrote: ...the sooner we decide to roll up our sleeves and get back to work instead of looking for bankers to blame, the better our chances of coming back. Denise Evans: His statement was a stereotypical corporate executive denial statement Herman Cain, of Godfather's Pizza, created jobs for Americans. He rolled up his sleeves and went to work creating thousands of jobs. Herman Cain is not responsible for current U.S. Government policy for U.S. corporations. I guess authoring corporate policy regulations is the responsibilty of the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress. It is not that Wall Street is completely innocent, but what the Occupy movement, and their intellectual leaders, fail to grasp is that the federal government has been Wall Street's partner in crime! The Hill Poll: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/129933/ And pizza is so cutthroat. You have to struggle so hard in a business which has the highest profit margins on Earth. A penny's worth of flour, a few particles of yeast, a bit of cheap oil, some salt, artificial tomato and cheese and there you have it: cost, $0.14, sales price $22.99. get yourself some minimum wage people to work the ovens, take the orders. American Capitalism at its best.Let's vote for a guy who can get America where he got his business: as the 8th most prosperous and powerful nation on Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary Clinton for President?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: This redeems your other post, barely. Of course I come to FFL for redemption. You see I don't exist, I don't have merit, I cannot survive without the approval of others. Boy, did you come to the right place. With a little work you could become one of the Pips.
[FairfieldLife] Greek Unions bemoan loss of gravy train!
Greek unions began a 48-hour general strike on Wednesday, the biggest protest in years, as parliament prepared to vote on sweeping new austerity measures designed to stave off a default that could trigger a crisis in the wider euro zone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Take a moment, 7:30am and 5:00pm Be there now! The immediate urgent priority for world peace is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world. Om, the 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts may need some volunteers to be arrested, just like at 'Occupy Wallstreet'. Outside the Fairfield Domes meditating. Squatters trespassing willing to be arrested protesting the TM-Rajas handling of the dome numbers. Tent meditators outside the Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes Turqb, could you volunteer for the high-risk arrest spots outside the domes? You don't seem to have many responsibilities in life. You know, not married, no children, no real livestock to chore, nothing to care for. Could you help us all out with this and come back? In the end this could be something you'd really feel good about yourself with. You'd be of great use. The 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts could use you right now outside the Domes. CurtisDb, would you please come back to meditation. You could be very helpful if you'd just come to meditation again. These are serious times. Come back. You don't even have to believe you'd do any good but the science shows good you would. It may be now or never. Like read the fricking news or read the science on global climate change. Cast down the blues and come change the course of things with us spiritually. Even if the TM-Rajas won't let you back in, come meditate in the parking lot as part of Occupy the Dome in Fairfield. We could use your help with the numbers. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Does my skin count, as a tent? Along the same lines, I sometimes pitch a tent in the presence of bodacious domes. Does that count? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Or, bring a tent to meditate in if you can't meditate in the domes. 7:30am and 5pm It would be a very large help if people would come and do their meditation in their cars in the parking lots outside by the Domes if they are not eligible any longer for getting in the domes. -Buck Om, the Dome numbers must really be on the skids. They have not updated the tallies since September. http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Live a life worth living together in all wealth and fulfillment and create a heavenly, affluent nation and world. Come to meditation right now! -Buck in FF The impulse of Occupy the Fairfield Domes is to support those laws of nature that will create comfort and abundance for everyone in society, supporting and nourishing all. The deepest level of nourishment is in establishing a base of massive spiritual coherence. With Massive support for Occupy Wall Street in many cities around the world, it's time for the Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City community to stand up (or to sit down) in full support of abundance for everyone. Let's Occupy the Domes!! Now! Innumerable lamps have suddenly lit the darkness of night and the whole earth is glowing as if waking up, becoming aware to receive love from its own inner light; -Maharishi [1951] -Buck in FF, an all heart Iowa farmer with a devotional streak a mile wide. May all the Laws of Nature bless you. Pledge to make a permanent protest against limitations and failures and support the Unified
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Sync up. Take a moment, 7:30am and 5:00pm Be there now! The immediate urgent priority for world peace is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world. Om, the 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts may need some volunteers to be arrested, just like at 'Occupy Wallstreet'. Outside the Fairfield Domes meditating. Squatters trespassing willing to be arrested protesting the TM-Rajas handling of the dome numbers. Tent meditators outside the Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes Turqb, could you volunteer for the high-risk arrest spots outside the domes? You don't seem to have many responsibilities in life. You know, not married, no children, no real livestock to chore, nothing to care for. Could you help us all out with this and come back? In the end this could be something you'd really feel good about yourself with. You'd be of great use. The 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts could use you right now outside the Domes. CurtisDb, would you please come back to meditation. You could be very helpful if you'd just come to meditation again. These are serious times. Come back. You don't even have to believe you'd do any good but the science shows good you would. It may be now or never. Like read the fricking news or read the science on global climate change. Cast down the blues and come change the course of things with us spiritually. Even if the TM-Rajas won't let you back in, come meditate in the parking lot as part of Occupy the Dome in Fairfield. We could use your help with the numbers. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Does my skin count, as a tent? Along the same lines, I sometimes pitch a tent in the presence of bodacious domes. Does that count? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Or, bring a tent to meditate in if you can't meditate in the domes. 7:30am and 5pm It would be a very large help if people would come and do their meditation in their cars in the parking lots outside by the Domes if they are not eligible any longer for getting in the domes. -Buck Om, the Dome numbers must really be on the skids. They have not updated the tallies since September. http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Live a life worth living together in all wealth and fulfillment and create a heavenly, affluent nation and world. Come to meditation right now! -Buck in FF The impulse of Occupy the Fairfield Domes is to support those laws of nature that will create comfort and abundance for everyone in society, supporting and nourishing all. The deepest level of nourishment is in establishing a base of massive spiritual coherence. With Massive support for Occupy Wall Street in many cities around the world, it's time for the Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City community to stand up (or to sit down) in full support of abundance for everyone. Let's Occupy the Domes!! Now! Innumerable lamps have suddenly lit the darkness of night and the whole earth is glowing as if waking up, becoming aware to receive love from its own inner light; -Maharishi [1951] -Buck in FF, an all heart Iowa farmer with a devotional streak a mile wide. May all the Laws of Nature bless you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Why does this strike me as Burma-Shave commercial for the latest TMO Re-Zombiefication Course? Just in time for Halloween, too. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Sync up. Take a moment,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary Clinton for President?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Hillary may be popular now. But she will not betray the Democratic Party to run as president in 2012. In fact, if Obama wins in 2012, she may be too old to run for president in 2016. It's not a betrayal to challenge an incumbent president. Ted Kennedy was up 2 to 1 in the polls when he challenged Carter in 1980. It's how democracy is supposed to work. It's not a matter of Hillary betraying the Democratic Party. In fact the DNC betrayed her in 2008. If she ran in 2012, they would betray her again and she knows it. http://youtu.be/um5QHGxmoBE Just 147 capitalist run the world. Bill and Hillary probably know a lot of them personally. They're players on the world stage now, American politics is old hat. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html Hillary has bigger fish to fry. President of the World Bank, perhaps? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/us/politics/11world.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: A national poll conducted for TIME on Oct. 9 and 10 found that if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee for President in 2012, she would best Mitt Romney 55% to 38%, Rick Perry 58% to 32% and Herman Cain 56% to 34% among likely voters in a general election. The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters. http://skydancingblog.com/2011/10/27/wow-just-wow/ Time does a poll to create some buzz about Hillary then slams her with this: We argue that Clinton is something of an expert at coming up with strategies for maximizing limited power given her life experiences, including being a First Lady with high visibility but little official swat, and a Secretary of State in the administration of her former rival, President Obama, who makes the final call on most major foreign policy and national security decisions with a small group of aides at the White Houseand without Clinton. No swat? Hillary can deliver swat. http://youtu.be/UH9rC0MaBJc Come on guys, give credit where credit is due. Hillary isn't just a step-and-fetch cocktail waitress for the big boyz getting lap dances from lobbyists. Hillary's poll numbers are up because she's the hardest working Secretary of State in history. To date she has traveled 575,754 miles. http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/ Plus, the wingnuts have a Kenyan-Nazi-Socialist black guy to kick around, so of course her poll numbers are up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Octopus consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: From a piece in Orion magazine, Deep Intellect: Inside the mind of the octopus, by Sy Montgomery On an unseasonably warm day in the middle of March, I traveled from New Hampshire to the moist, dim sanctuary of the New England Aquarium, hoping to touch an alternate reality. I came to meet Athena, the aquarium's forty-pound, five-foot-long, two-and-a-half -year-old giant Pacific octopus. For me, it was a momentous occasion. I have always loved octopuses. No sci-fi alien is so startlingly strange. Here is someone who, even if she grows to one hundred pounds and stretches more than eight feet long, could still squeeze her boneless body through an opening the size of an orange; an animal whose eight arms are covered with thousands of suckers that taste as well as feel; a mollusk with a beak like a parrot and venom like a snake and a tongue covered with teeth; a creature who can shape-shift, change color, and squirt ink. But most intriguing of all, recent research indicates that octopuses are remarkably intelligent Only recently have scientists accorded chimpanzees, so closely related to humans we can share blood transfusions, the dignity of having a mind. But now, increasingly, researchers who study octopuses are convinced that these boneless, alien animals--creatures whose ancestors diverged from the lineage that would lead to ours roughly 500 to 700 million years ago--have developed intelligence, emotions, and individual personalities. Their findings are challenging our understanding of consciousness itself Read more: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6474 Beautiful, touching story, not too long. Very much worth a read. And even if you don't read the piece, don't miss this remarkable video (about a minute); guaranteed to blow your mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckP8msIgMYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmYaVrd5KKofeature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=kFvrAdyFUJ8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdccAhrjx_U
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Why does this strike me as Burma-Shave commercial for the latest TMO Re-Zombiefication Course? Because you are a mad dog ? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Was Gautama Buddha a Shaka??
Why do you think he is called Buddha Shakyamuni (zAkyamuni)?
On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:29 AM, cardemaister wrote:
From The Legend of King Vikrama, Introduction:
In addition to being an exemplary king, he [Vikrama -- card]
is also said to have liberated India from the rule of the
Shakas [CDSL: zaka -- card] or foreigners.
CDSL:
zaka 3 m. pl. N. of a partic. whiteskinned tribe or race of people
(in the legends which relate the contests between Vasisht2ha and
Vis3vamitra the S3akas are fabled to have been produced by the Cow
of Vasisht2ha , from her sweat , for the destruction of
Vis3va1mitra's army ; in Mn. x , 44 , they are mentioned together
with the Paun2d2rakas , Od2ras , Dravid2as , Ka1mbojas , Javanas or
Yavanas , Pa1radas , Pahlavas , Ci1nas , Kira1tas , Daradas , and
Khas3as , described by Kullu1ka as degraded tribes of Kshatriyas
called after the districts in which they reside: according to the
VP. iv , 3 , king Sagara attempted to rid his kingdom of these
tribes , but did not succeed in destroying them all: they are
sometimes regarded as the followers of S3aka or S3a1li-va1hana ,
and are probably to be identified with the Tartars or Indo-
Scythians [Lat. %{saca}] who overran India before the A1ryans , and
were conquered by the great Vikrama7ditya [q.v.] ; they really seem
to have been dominant in the north-west of India in the last
century before and the first two centuries after the beginning of
our era) AV.Paris3. Mn. MBh. c. ; a king of the S3akas g. %
{kambojA7di} (on Pa1n2. 4-1 , 175 Va1rtt.) ; an era , epoch (cf. %{-
kAla}) ; a year (of any era) Inscr. ; a partic. fragrant substance
Gal.
zAkya [ = Shaakya -- card] mfn. derived or descended from the
S3akas [ = zakas -- card] (= %{zakA@abhijano@'sya}) g. %
{zaNDikA7di} ; m. N. of a tribe of landowners and Kshatriyas in
Kapila-vastu (from whom Gautama , the founder of Buddhism , was
descended) Buddh. MWB. 21 , 22 ; N. of Gautama Buddha himself
Nya1yam. ; of his father S3uddhodana (son of Sam2jaya) Pur. ; a
Buddhist mendicant VarBr2S. ; patr. fr. %{zaka} g. %{gargA7di} ;
patr. fr. %{zAka} , or %{zAkin} g. %{kurv-Adi}.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: You ARE enlightened. Â I have similar stories with my glasses as I come late to wearing them (i.e., middle age). Â I clean them with whatever shirt I am wearing most times or water and kleenex or hand sanitizer if I happen to have any. Â They are not prescription. Â I lose them and break them on a regular basis. Consider yourself lucky that you can get by with drug store reading glasses. With me, one eye needs more magnification than the other, so I have to have prescription glasses if I want to be able to read for more than a couple minutes without getting a headache.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? You seem to have bought into two of the false memes Barry has done his best to establish. First, by far the majority of the criticism directed at Barry is not about his comments concerning TM, it's about his incredibly obnoxious behavior toward others on FFL. There are plenty of TM critics here who don't come in for the same disapprobation that Barry does, because they treat others like human beings rather than like garbage. Second, the notion that TMers are threatened by what he has to say about TM/MMY/the TMO is absurd. That one disagrees with somebody's view or disapproves of their behavior, or both, doesn't mean they feel threatened by it. Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words I think you may be thinking of Vaj rather than Barry here. Vaj is the one who most often gets TM words wrong. Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set What Barry primarily shows the dark side of is Barry. yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. Take another look at the exchange you were commenting on: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally. What you are really listing are the people on FFL who don't threaten lil' Barry and his shriveled heart. This is on the nose. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: LOL. I like your paragraph about this being an intimidating place. And yet... My perspective is different. I think it's only an intimidating place for those who feel as if they have an image that needs protecting. Those who have a more fluid personality, and feel no need to con- stantly defend themselves and their view of who and what they are don't seem to find it intimidating at all. In that ilk I include notables such as Curtis, you, Alex, Rick, Marek, Sal, Susan/wayback, tartbrain, Denise, Xeno, and many others, who never seem to worry about it. The ability to just be oneself seems to be its own reward. ...do you think I feel intimidated by FFL? No? Then why am I not on his list? Note also, by the way, that while he does put Denise on his list of those not intimidated by FFL, it was her confession that *she finds FFL intimidating* that initiated this exchange. Bottom line, he wasn't really paying attention to what was being said, nor did he have anything insightful to point out. He simply felt the need to lash out at the people who intimidate *him*. And that, in a nutshell, is why so many here criticize Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Dutch success -- dealing with teen sexuality
I wonder whether a similar distinction might make sense for issues around sex and the BBC article about different cultures' attitudes towards drinking?Drinking-ambivalent cultures (like the UK US) had worse behaviours associated with drinking than drink-integrated cultures like France and other European countries. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317 Great interview. Some really good points made. I've always believed that in most instances the damage inflicted on young people over sex is not due to the sex per se but the reaction of the grown ups with their all out, non-stop drama and terror imposed on it from the authorities, be they parents, teachers, clergy or the law, who destroy the divine -natural experience with all their quilting and shaming and terrorizing. Instead of seeing sex for what it is: a very human activity that is both fun and pleasurable-divine that, like everything else in life, requires a degree of responsibility, countries like puritanical USA lade it down with religious and social baggage that actually have nothing to do with sex itself. Wonder why nobody at FFL wonders why in [X-(] the TMO moved their HQ activities to FF-USA after MMY passing? At last my stressfulcrusade (starting from the beginning of the 70s) to keep MMY and TMO in Europe a futile effort? ...Jerry Jarvis(JeJa)reactivation -rectifying a late triumph of his American franchise TMO intrigue ? (see posting infamous National Leader watershed conference at Hertenstein and Je Ja)---all not important now Just asking and contemplating the reason of moving (just as if they've been waiting for) to this religion obsessed country [O:)] BTW But in NL there's the problem of immigrants -- it's not as if the minorities there follow these rules, and the fact they don't may create a lot of Romeo-and-Juliet tension in inter-group relationships --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: The family in the house next door to mine couldn't possibly be more Christian and clean-cut. But when their daughters became old enough to want to have boyfriends and have sex with them, the parents reacted as noted in the article below. The daughters are now in their 20s, still close with their parents, and among the most well-adjusted, poised young women I've ever met. If they'd grown up in America statistically they'd be pregnant, have STDs, and be on drugs by now. Vive la difference! Solving America's teen sex problem http://www.salon.com/2011/10/30/solving_americas_teen_sex_problem/singl\ \ etonThe Dutch have dramatically reduced adolescent pregnancies, abortions and STDs. What do they know that we don't?By Thomas Rogers http://www.salon.com/writer/thomas_rogers/ When 16-year-old Natalie first started dating her boyfriend, her mother did something that would mortify most American parents: She took her to the doctor's office to get her contraceptives. Her mother wasn't weirded out by the fact that her teen daughter was about to have sex in fact, she fully supported it. She merely wanted to make sure that she was doing it safely, and responsibly. A couple of months later, when it finally happened, her parents were totally accepting. As her father put it, sixteen is a beautiful age to lose your virginity. If that seems like an unfamiliar attitude toward sex and parenting, it might have something to do with the fact that Natalie's parents aren't American they're Dutch. They are one of dozens of Dutch families interviewed by Amy T. Schalet, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in her new book, Not Under My Roof. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/not-under-my-roof-amy-t-schalet/1102669\ \ 963 Schalet's book compares the sexual attitudes of American and Dutch parents and her findings are nothing short of staggering: Whereas most American parents panic about the idea of allowing their kids to have sex with other kids under their roof, for many Dutch parents, it's not only fine it's responsible parenting. As Schalet's extensively researched, fascinating work shows, the Netherlands' radically different approach to sex and child-rearing has managed to radically decrease levels of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexual infections. It has fostered closer relationships between teenagers and their parents, and helped make teenagers' first times far more pleasurable. Not Under My Roof is a startling wake-up call about America's largely misguided attitudes toward sex and growing up. Salon spoke to Schalet over the phone about the sexual revolution, America's slut problem and how the new generation is changing our attitudes toward sex. As you point out in the book, the statistical differences between American and Dutch teens when it comes to sex is pretty staggering. Yes. The pregnancy rate is about four times higher in the U.S. than in the
[FairfieldLife] HuffPost goes Zombie for the day to appease Bhairitu :-)
Or other zombie fans out there. Cute. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/culture/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Gautama Buddha a Shaka??
From The Legend of King Vikrama... Vaj: Why do you think he is called Buddha Shakyamuni (zAkyamuni)? Because they thought the muni was enlightened so they called him 'Buddha'? FYI: King 'Vikrama' is a legendary emperor in Indian history, later an assumed name from the Gupta Age. Vikramaditya lived in the first century BC. The 'Shakas' were the Indo-Scythians refered to in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, who invaded India in 180 BC. According to Thapar, the 'Shakya', in Shakyamuni, refers to the Shakya (Gotama gotra) from which was supposedly born the historical Buddha, in 563 BC at Lumbini, in what is now Nepal, mentioned in the 'Mahavastu' as being a ruling clan at Kapilavastu, according to the 'Lalitavistara'. Apparently there was a misunderstanding between the Shayas and the Kosalas, having to do with a slave girl, resulting in the Kosalas wiping out the Shakyas around 525 BC. 'Indian Buddhism' By A.K. Warder Motilal Banarsidass, 2004 2000. p. 45 'Ancient Indian Social History' By Romilla Thapar Orient Longman, 1978 p.117
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices.
[FairfieldLife] Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You- explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
[FairfieldLife] Smashing Pumpkins
On Halloween I think of John Block. I last saw John 15-years ago sitting on a pile of his belongings near the corner of Stone and 3rd. It was always hard to read John's ever expressionless dead-pan face or get an indication of what he was feeling from a hint of inflection in his flat monotone. I couldn't tell if he was happy or sad when he told me he was on his way to New Mexico with his dogs. His dog had had puppies, so all five dogs and John had lived happily together in his little apartment. I believe his landlord evicted him for excessive poop on the premises. Some years prior to his departure from Fairfield, when we first arrived from Amherst in 1979, John had been working on MIU kitchen staff. I was on CCP (Creating Coherence Program) at the time. There was a kitchen in one of the frat buildings I reported to once a week to chop veggies in exchange for CCP. One day around Halloween, on my way to kitchen duty, I happened to walk by a storage room near the kitchen. I peeked into the room and there was John sitting on a large pile of nearly floor-to-ceiling, overly ripe pumpkins. He had been tasked with removing them from the room. As soon as he saw me, I don't know what came over him, mania? In that same dead-pan expression that never left his face, without a word or a grunt, for the next 5 minutes he began leaping from pumpkin to pumpkin, smashing them into a pulpy mess. I laughed myself silly at the sight of him. I'll never forget it. God Bless John where ever he is. Happy Halloween. Smashing Pumpkins in Slow Motion http://youtu.be/4bALl6dhVRk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Translation: I have no explanation for why I've spent a large portion of *every week I've posted to a.m.t. or FFL in the last 16+ years* obsessing about Barry and trying to 'get' him and trying to get other people to do the same thing, so I'll do it again. Maybe it'll work this time. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Smashing Pumpkins
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:42 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Smashing Pumpkins On Halloween I think of John Block. I last saw John 15-years ago sitting on a pile of his belongings near the corner of Stone and 3rd. It was always hard to read John's ever expressionless dead-pan face or get an indication of what he was feeling from a hint of inflection in his flat monotone. I couldn't tell if he was happy or sad when he told me he was on his way to New Mexico with his dogs. His dog had had puppies, so all five dogs and John had lived happily together in his little apartment. I believe his landlord evicted him for excessive poop on the premises. Some years prior to his departure from Fairfield, when we first arrived from Amherst in 1979, John had been working on MIU kitchen staff. I was on CCP (Creating Coherence Program) at the time. There was a kitchen in one of the frat buildings I reported to once a week to chop veggies in exchange for CCP. One day around Halloween, on my way to kitchen duty, I happened to walk by a storage room near the kitchen. I peeked into the room and there was John sitting on a large pile of nearly floor-to-ceiling, overly ripe pumpkins. He had been tasked with removing them from the room. As soon as he saw me, I don't know what came over him, mania? In that same dead-pan expression that never left his face, without a word or a grunt, for the next 5 minutes he began leaping from pumpkin to pumpkin, smashing them into a pulpy mess. I laughed myself silly at the sight of him. I'll never forget it. God Bless John where ever he is. Happy Halloween. Another John story: at Livingston Manor he was working in the kitchen, and one day decided to put himself through the Hobart dishwasher. It was a large industrial machine with a conveyor belt. I don't know how he did it without getting burned - maybe there was a way of turning down the water temperature - but when he came out the other end, Neil Paterson happened to be standing there.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Oakland Protestors plan to shut down the Port of Oakland
On 10/30/2011 07:23 PM, wgm4u wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: Let me guess, Billy thinks that a great leader would be one that makes Billy rich even if everyone else is left poor? Right Billy? Of course, I'm an EVIL Republican.WWOOOoooOOooo@! Happy Holloween anyway!! ;-) Oh, so you're one of these! :-D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo2iaR-TwRE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Oakland Protestors plan to shut down the Port of Oakland
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 10/30/2011 07:23 PM, wgm4u wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: Let me guess, Billy thinks that a great leader would be one that makes Billy rich even if everyone else is left poor? Right Billy? Of course, I'm an EVIL Republican.WWOOOoooOOooo@! Happy Holloween anyway!! ;-) Oh, so you're one of these! :-D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo2iaR-TwRE Hysterical. What really cracked me up is that the John Boehner figure looks just like he does in real life-- they didn't have to give him any special zombie accoutrements.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. Your choice, but that is not interesting to me. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That is the nature of feuds. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to continue the ill will. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. ME: I don't view my role here the way you do I guess. I don't need to stand up for people here very often and they don't need to stand up for me. And you don't stand up for me so your complaint is kind of hollow. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices. ME: There are examples. Jim and I have had some of the most rancorous exchanges with anyone here but we found a friendlier path and now exchanges are much more interesting. There are some posters who will always take agressive shots and I avoid them after giving it the old college try. In fact our interactions are an example of both of us choosing to interact in a more interesting way that is less one dimentional. But it took us both to decide that is what we wanted. No one had to step in and help us work it out. And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern with Barry.. You both seem to enjoy it so I get it, that this is none of my business. I was just giving my opinion to Robin that the Tango rule is in full force here. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. But he defended himself without any rescuers like most adults here. I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene when you obviously have it all under control and are enjoying yourself in the interaction relationship you have both chosen. On the other hand I have stuck my nose in when the topic interests me so I am not making some rule for myself. I pick and choose just as you do. But there is no intersection between how I relate to you and how Barry does. Same for how I relate to him and the way you do. I might as well be dealing with two different people in each case. And that is by mutual choice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smashing Pumpkins
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:42 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Smashing Pumpkins On Halloween I think of John Block. I last saw John 15-years ago sitting on a pile of his belongings near the corner of Stone and 3rd. It was always hard to read John's ever expressionless dead-pan face or get an indication of what he was feeling from a hint of inflection in his flat monotone. I couldn't tell if he was happy or sad when he told me he was on his way to New Mexico with his dogs. His dog had had puppies, so all five dogs and John had lived happily together in his little apartment. I believe his landlord evicted him for excessive poop on the premises. Some years prior to his departure from Fairfield, when we first arrived from Amherst in 1979, John had been working on MIU kitchen staff. I was on CCP (Creating Coherence Program) at the time. There was a kitchen in one of the frat buildings I reported to once a week to chop veggies in exchange for CCP. One day around Halloween, on my way to kitchen duty, I happened to walk by a storage room near the kitchen. I peeked into the room and there was John sitting on a large pile of nearly floor-to-ceiling, overly ripe pumpkins. He had been tasked with removing them from the room. As soon as he saw me, I don't know what came over him, mania? In that same dead-pan expression that never left his face, without a word or a grunt, for the next 5 minutes he began leaping from pumpkin to pumpkin, smashing them into a pulpy mess. I laughed myself silly at the sight of him. I'll never forget it. God Bless John where ever he is. Happy Halloween. Another John story: at Livingston Manor he was working in the kitchen, and one day decided to put himself through the Hobart dishwasher. It was a large industrial machine with a conveyor belt. I don't know how he did it without getting burned - maybe there was a way of turning down the water temperature - but when he came out the other end, Neil Paterson happened to be standing there. Another John story: One evening, I got into a limo with John and a few other whacky friends and we drove all over Fairield so that John could lean out the window and say to passersby, Pardon me... would you have any Grey Poupon? What a hoot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
On 10/31/2011 06:32 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evansdmevans365@... wrote: You ARE enlightened. Â I have similar stories with my glasses as I come late to wearing them (i.e., middle age). Â I clean them with whatever shirt I am wearing most times or water and kleenex or hand sanitizer if I happen to have any. Â They are not prescription. Â I lose them and break them on a regular basis. Consider yourself lucky that you can get by with drug store reading glasses. With me, one eye needs more magnification than the other, so I have to have prescription glasses if I want to be able to read for more than a couple minutes without getting a headache. My left eye got a cataract about 12 years ago and a few months later had a cataract operation. Quite a light show once the surgeon removed the lens until replaced it with an artificial one. Anyway my left eye is almost 20/20 while the right about 20/400. I don't have any reading glasses but did take one pair of cheap ones to correct for the left eye and knocked the lens out of the right side for reading. But the parallax needs correction so decided a month back to drop by Site for Sore Eyes to have them make a reading pair. They actually did the last visit but they got my order wrong because I had left the frame for the sunglasses to be upgraded (yes, the frames held sunglass lenses). I have a pair of computer glasses for work as they are more mid-range than close but don't work as reading glasses. Anyhoo, they told me I needed another session with the optometrist because by law it is required every two years. Haven't been back for that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] HuffPost goes Zombie for the day to appease Bhairitu :-)
On 10/31/2011 07:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Or other zombie fans out there. Cute. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/culture/ Back at ya!:-D 25 Awsome Horror Films You Probably Haven't Seen http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/10/25-unknown-horror-films/ Actually I have seen some of them. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Dear Judy, I hope that what I am about to say here does not contradict the spirit of my last post to Curtis. I believe it does not. But I am glad you wrote as you did here, becauseas far as it is possible for me to understand you truthfully (that is objectively)I judge your comments to be solidly veracious. And, in a very real sense, not even subject to debate. I say this, because of the context you pull along with you. I won't take back anything of what I said in my post to Curtis (today); on the other hand, I will refuse to even read what Curtis has by way of rebuttal to what you have said here. Because I fear it would tempt me into a somewhat retrogressive step: i.e. the hunt for the true Curtis. But know this, Judy: without your presence on FFL, I doubt I would have continued to post. Judy: I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are no simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. Robin: I won't change my mind about Curtisthat is, what I have just written to him. But should he even *attempt* to question the above, I will have to bite my lip and turn my face away, because there is not a single person on FFL who can gainsay what you have said here. It has always been my experience. It remains my experience. No only this: but anyone who thinks he or she is up to refuting what you have said here, necessarily has to engage in either wilful stupidity, or else sleight-of-hand deceitfulness. There just isn't an answer to what you have said that I quote here. And I must leave it at that. Sometimes there is something more than mere opinions being thrown around here at FFL; sometimes there are facts. I think you generally deal in factsor at least when you give your opinions (as in your political or religious comments) it is clear you recognize the difference: that is, when you are being logical and truthful; when you are making a judgment that you know is subject to debate. I have said what I set out to say here, Judy. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on
[FairfieldLife] Re: HuffPost goes Zombie for the day to appease Bhairitu :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 10/31/2011 07:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Or other zombie fans out there. Cute. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/culture/ Back at ya!:-D 25 Awsome Horror Films You Probably Haven't Seen http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/10/25-unknown-horror-films/ Actually I have seen some of them. Go figure. And I've seen five. :-) For some reason, however, I seem to have lost my taste for horror movies. It's the real reason why I can't get into the new Zombie TV series or horror series you've been raving about. I gave both a shot (1 episode), found myself bored by both, and moved on. It was just the cliche thang. Seen one zombie movie, seen 'em all. Unless they're funny, like Zombieland or Zombie Apocalypse. Same thing with most of the horror movie cliches. I've just seen them so many times that I have lost my tolerance for seeing them again. Mea culpa. BTW, curious about what I might have missed in S1mOne, I'm watching it again and finding it very clever. As he did in Gattaca and The Truman Show and In Time, Andrew Niccol really likes sticking it to the status quo. In S1mOne a failed prima donna director (Al Pacino) decides to salvage his career and finish his last movie by casting an entirely computer-generated actress as its star. She becomes a worldwide sensation, but now he has to somehow produce the real-life actress. One of the great quotes so far is, Our ability to manufacture fraud now exceeds our ability to detect it. An interesting tidbit from the IMDB: After seeing the photorealism of the computer generated actors in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, the producers started to lean toward the idea of having Simone actually be a computer generated actress. However, after heavy opposition from the Screen Actor's Guild, claiming in so many words that replacement of actors in ALL movies would be the next logical step, the idea was scrapped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. Actually your comments on them, including in this post, demonstrate that you haven't read nearly enough. I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. And here's an example: They're always mean on Barry's side. But not on mine. Moreover, many of his mean posts about me and others *are addressed to you*. If I say something negative to you about Barry, you usually defend him. If he says something negative to you about me, you almost always just ignore it. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That is the nature of feuds. He will *say* it's the opposite. I'm quite sure he knows better. And so would you if you'd read enough of our posts. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to continue the ill will. And there's another example demonstrating that you haven't read enough to say. Heck, you didn't even read what *I* just said. Reasoned, noninflammatory analysis is the opposite of demeaning. And then there's this: That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. Barry's posts having to do with me are *always* demeaning. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. And this. snip But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices. ME: There are examples. Jim and I This isn't an example that relates to what I just wrote. snip And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern with Barry.. You both seem to enjoy it I don't. There's nothing enjoyable about interacting with Barry when one is on his enemies list. so I get it, that this is none of my business. I was just giving my opinion to Robin that the Tango rule is in full force here. And I'm pointing out why your opinion is way off-base. snip I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene I don't need anyone to intervene. I simply point out that you don't intervene, on my behalf or anybody else's. That's your choice. It isn't a choice I respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Thanks, Robin, I appreciate this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Judy, I hope that what I am about to say here does not contradict the spirit of my last post to Curtis. I believe it does not. But I am glad you wrote as you did here, becauseas far as it is possible for me to understand you truthfully (that is objectively)I judge your comments to be solidly veracious. And, in a very real sense, not even subject to debate. I say this, because of the context you pull along with you. I won't take back anything of what I said in my post to Curtis (today); on the other hand, I will refuse to even read what Curtis has by way of rebuttal to what you have said here. Because I fear it would tempt me into a somewhat retrogressive step: i.e. the hunt for the true Curtis. But know this, Judy: without your presence on FFL, I doubt I would have continued to post. Judy: I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are no simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. Robin: I won't change my mind about Curtisthat is, what I have just written to him. But should he even *attempt* to question the above, I will have to bite my lip and turn my face away, because there is not a single person on FFL who can gainsay what you have said here. It has always been my experience. It remains my experience. No only this: but anyone who thinks he or she is up to refuting what you have said here, necessarily has to engage in either wilful stupidity, or else sleight-of-hand deceitfulness. There just isn't an answer to what you have said that I quote here. And I must leave it at that. Sometimes there is something more than mere opinions being thrown around here at FFL; sometimes there are facts. I think you generally deal in factsor at least when you give your opinions (as in your political or religious comments) it is clear you recognize the difference: that is, when you are being logical and truthful; when you are making a judgment that you know is subject to debate. I have said what I set out to say here, Judy. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Opsie, you forgot, you're not supposed to be reading any of my posts. But thanks for making my points for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Translation: I have no explanation for why I've spent a large portion of *every week I've posted to a.m.t. or FFL in the last 16+ years* obsessing about Barry and trying to 'get' him and trying to get other people to do the same thing, so I'll do it again. Maybe it'll work this time. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
RESPONSE: Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. [Curtis to Judy] Well, my friend, this *is* bullshit. Because it implies some equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity. Barry has scrupulously avoided any real contact with me, so as to demonstrate he is willing to stand behind what he says. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. No, Curtis, Barry was giving it to Robin in a form of scattershot carelessness and impetuous pique which could never be understood by any honest bystander as giving it to me with both barrels. F**k me. I *wish* Barry would give it to me with both barrels. But he never will, Curtis. Now look: I take back nothing of what I have just said in that letter; I will only say that this invidious (and implied) comparison is baffling to me. Just out with it: Stand behind this one declarative statement: Although I like both of them, in my judgment Barry is giving it to Robin in principle at least the same way Robin is giving it to Barry. Then I shall believe that you believe what you say to Judy here, that Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. Barry will have loved that you said that, Curtis, but I know *for a fact* that this is not your true judgment of what Barry is doing when he goes off on Robin. Must it come to this kind of politics? No matter. My letter standsbut so does my post to Judy. If I were you, Curtis, I would, in my off-line correspondence with Barry, risk edifying him about how he comes off here at FFL. Meanwhile I shall just trust in the wisdom which makes you say what you say here to which I have responded. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. Your choice, but that is not interesting to me. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That is the nature of feuds. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to continue the ill will. That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with him. There were other choices. Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. But I don't pretend to be a saint. Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit list if he can possibly help it. ME: I don't view my role here the way you do I guess. I don't need to stand up for people here very often and they don't need to stand up for me. And you don't stand up for me so your complaint is kind of hollow. But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HuffPost goes Zombie for the day to appease Bhairitu :-)
On 10/31/2011 09:40 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 10/31/2011 07:34 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Or other zombie fans out there. Cute. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/culture/ Back at ya!:-D 25 Awsome Horror Films You Probably Haven't Seen http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/10/25-unknown-horror-films/ Actually I have seen some of them. Go figure. And I've seen five. :-) For some reason, however, I seem to have lost my taste for horror movies. It's the real reason why I can't get into the new Zombie TV series or horror series you've been raving about. I gave both a shot (1 episode), found myself bored by both, and moved on. It was just the cliche thang. Seen one zombie movie, seen 'em all. Unless they're funny, like Zombieland or Zombie Apocalypse. Same thing with most of the horror movie cliches. I've just seen them so many times that I have lost my tolerance for seeing them again. Mea culpa. I used to be that way, avoiding them (zombie movies not zombies) in the video store. Don't know what changed but I think it was The Crazies that got me interested in the original Romero version and I found his commentaries so good I had to collect more of them. Romero always has an element of comedy in his zombie films. It was because I felt zombie films were too easy to do. You don't need any real extras or actors because about anyone can play a zombie. So they tended to flood the market with zombie films. The Walking Dead however is less a series about zombies than it is about people trying to survive in a world populated with them. Zombie aficionados get into all kinds of discussion about the phenomenon. For instance: why wouldn't zombies just eat each other? Apparently they need fresh food. And what kind of virus would actually turn a person into a virus? I bought the 28 Days Later DVD just for the commentary which I've not found the section yet where they consulted experts to find what kind of affliction might create such behavior. Probably if you had something that destroyed all but the reptilian brain of a person you would have that kind of violent animalistic behavior. And of course zombies can't run. ;-) The lore of zombies comes from the voodoo practice of giving someone a toxin from a blowfish which would leave them somewhat paralyzed. The Serpent and the Rainbow first as a book and then a movie explored that. A couple weeks back I watched a documentary Zombiemania on Netflix that examined the zombie phenomena. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Zombiemania/70123547
[FairfieldLife] Religion: rats and ordinance
http://www.heiditaillefer.com/index.php?option=com_contentid=33Itemid=9 So much for the Monotheistic religions - the 3 major religions of the Bible. Buyer beware...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. Actually your comments on them, including in this post, demonstrate that you haven't read nearly enough. ME: You actually wrote that with a straight face? I have read more than enough, we just disagree on the perspective. I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. And here's an example: They're always mean on Barry's side. But not on mine. Moreover, many of his mean posts about me and others *are addressed to you*. If I say something negative to you about Barry, you usually defend him. If he says something negative to you about me, you almost always just ignore it. ME: Your score card might be right. I try to pick my battles here like everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if I had bias. You guys like to take shots at each other over my bow. I ignore far more than I respond to. I don't claim to be blameless, but I utterly reject the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That is the nature of feuds. He will *say* it's the opposite. I'm quite sure he knows better. And so would you if you'd read enough of our posts. Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to continue the ill will. And there's another example demonstrating that you haven't read enough to say. Heck, you didn't even read what *I* just said. Reasoned, noninflammatory analysis is the opposite of demeaning. ME: So you pick 50% as insulting. OK, I am not going to quibble about the numbers. Whatever the numbers it appears to be enough to keep it rolling in the same direction. Would you like me to say that many of your posts involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made? OK that sounds right. But whatever the number of ill will posts it seems to be working. And as prolific as you are here, and as Barry focused, that 50% number is mindnumbingly high. And then there's this: That is never the case with Barry's posts that have to do with me. Barry's posts having to do with me are *always* demeaning. ME: No need to argue with this, it sounds right. I'll take your word that this is how you feel about all of them. There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. And this. ME: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. snip But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so sanguine about the availability of other choices. ME: There are examples. Jim and I This isn't an example that relates to what I just wrote. ME: Sure it is. I was on Jim's shit list at one time and now am not. We both chose this. And maybe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Smashing Pumpkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOGq5XTojo --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: On Halloween I think of John Block. I last saw John 15-years ago sitting on a pile of his belongings near the corner of Stone and 3rd. It was always hard to read John's ever expressionless dead-pan face or get an indication of what he was feeling from a hint of inflection in his flat monotone. I couldn't tell if he was happy or sad when he told me he was on his way to New Mexico with his dogs. His dog had had puppies, so all five dogs and John had lived happily together in his little apartment. I believe his landlord evicted him for excessive poop on the premises. Some years prior to his departure from Fairfield, when we first arrived from Amherst in 1979, John had been working on MIU kitchen staff. I was on CCP (Creating Coherence Program) at the time. There was a kitchen in one of the frat buildings I reported to once a week to chop veggies in exchange for CCP. One day around Halloween, on my way to kitchen duty, I happened to walk by a storage room near the kitchen. I peeked into the room and there was John sitting on a large pile of nearly floor-to-ceiling, overly ripe pumpkins. He had been tasked with removing them from the room. As soon as he saw me, I don't know what came over him, mania? In that same dead-pan expression that never left his face, without a word or a grunt, for the next 5 minutes he began leaping from pumpkin to pumpkin, smashing them into a pulpy mess. I laughed myself silly at the sight of him. I'll never forget it. God Bless John where ever he is. Happy Halloween. Smashing Pumpkins in Slow Motion http://youtu.be/4bALl6dhVRk
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary Clinton for President?
Hillary is supposed to be working for Obama right now. How would it look to the general public if she decides that she will challenge the president for the next election? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Hillary may be popular now. But she will not betray the Democratic Party to run as president in 2012. In fact, if Obama wins in 2012, she may be too old to run for president in 2016. It's not a betrayal to challenge an incumbent president. Ted Kennedy was up 2 to 1 in the polls when he challenged Carter in 1980. It's how democracy is supposed to work. It's not a matter of Hillary betraying the Democratic Party. In fact the DNC betrayed her in 2008. If she ran in 2012, they would betray her again and she knows it. http://youtu.be/um5QHGxmoBE Just 147 capitalist run the world. Bill and Hillary probably know a lot of them personally. They're players on the world stage now, American politics is old hat. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html Hillary has bigger fish to fry. President of the World Bank, perhaps? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/us/politics/11world.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: A national poll conducted for TIME on Oct. 9 and 10 found that if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee for President in 2012, she would best Mitt Romney 55% to 38%, Rick Perry 58% to 32% and Herman Cain 56% to 34% among likely voters in a general election. The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters. http://skydancingblog.com/2011/10/27/wow-just-wow/ Time does a poll to create some buzz about Hillary then slams her with this: We argue that Clinton is something of an expert at coming up with strategies for maximizing limited power given her life experiences, including being a First Lady with high visibility but little official swat, and a Secretary of State in the administration of her former rival, President Obama, who makes the final call on most major foreign policy and national security decisions with a small group of aides at the White Houseand without Clinton. No swat? Hillary can deliver swat. http://youtu.be/UH9rC0MaBJc Come on guys, give credit where credit is due. Hillary isn't just a step-and-fetch cocktail waitress for the big boyz getting lap dances from lobbyists. Hillary's poll numbers are up because she's the hardest working Secretary of State in history. To date she has traveled 575,754 miles. http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/ Plus, the wingnuts have a Kenyan-Nazi-Socialist black guy to kick around, so of course her poll numbers are up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online
This article is insightful. Hawking is past his prime. He should resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You- explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: RESPONSE: Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. [Curtis to Judy] Well, my friend, this *is* bullshit. Because it implies some equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity. ME: No it doesn't. It means he went after you enthusiastically. It denies the possibility for any equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity:. R: Barry has scrupulously avoided any real contact with me, so as to demonstrate he is willing to stand behind what he says. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. No, Curtis, Barry was giving it to Robin in a form of scattershot carelessness and impetuous pique which could never be understood by any honest bystander as giving it to me with both barrels. ME: OK if that characterization works better for you. I guess we have a different view of what the analogy both barrels implies. For me it is full-on aggression. R: F**k me. I *wish* Barry would give it to me with both barrels. But he never will, Curtis. ME: You are including more in the metaphor than I did. I don't know why you are taking me to task for having a slightly different take on what both barrels includes. Now look: I take back nothing of what I have just said in that letter; I will only say that this invidious (and implied) comparison is baffling to me. ME: I didn't say it was justified, I meant it was enthusiastic. Obviously given the difference in our interactions I didn't agree with his take on you. But it was both forceful and hostile which is what the image of both barrels means to me. R: Just out with it: Stand behind this one declarative statement: Although I like both of them, in my judgment Barry is giving it to Robin in principle at least the same way Robin is giving it to Barry. ME: I think he took an instant dislike to you and spent some time expressing it. I don't believe that his initial attack was warranted and it put you in a weird defensive posture. You tried to work with it to get past that hostility but it did not work. Barry is not going to budge about his initial negative assessment of you no matter what you respond with. So the two barrels don't imply that there is a balance in how you have related to each other. He went after you and I believe you found it perplexing at first. But now that you know who you are dealing with you can decide how much attention to spend on interactions with him. This is a plant that will not grow without water. Then I shall believe that you believe what you say to Judy here, that Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. ME: I also believe that he was not interacting with you so much as an impression he gleaned about how you operate connected with his experience of people (especially leaders) in spiritual groups. You got pied. It is disconcerting I know. But in my view he was giving it to you with both barrels of hostility. R: Barry will have loved that you said that, Curtis, but I know *for a fact* that this is not your true judgment of what Barry is doing when he goes off on Robin. Must it come to this kind of politics? ME: I think you read too much into the metaphor. It was not meant to give Barry a chuckle but to sum up how I saw his hostile approach to you. Would it help if I characterized it as mean? But I don't need to chase after Barry with my opinion, he knows what he was doing. R: No matter. My letter standsbut so does my post to Judy. If I were you, Curtis, I would, in my off-line correspondence with Barry, risk edifying him about how he comes off here at FFL. ME: Barry and I rarely discuss FFL. We are usually working on such different tracks here. I have long conversations with Judy and you and he would rather grill his genitals on a Hibachi than engage in either discussions. I am only concerned with how we relate, not how he chooses to relate to others. I am not interested in getting involved in a no win situation getting between people who don't like each other or who (in this case) Barry has taken an instant dislike to. The way you and I have communicated is enough information about who we both are for people to make a more informed decision about us. That is good enough for me. I can't make anyone read anything or see what I see in people. Meanwhile I shall just trust in the wisdom which makes you say what you say here to which I have responded. ME: Thanks for the response. I am still processing it all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Curtis to Judy: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. Dear Curtis, Of course Judy will answer you on this; but I can't help myself. And before I say anything, maybe two things are true that I currently believe are false: namely 1. that Barry does get Judy's goat; and 2. Judy really is into the game of antagonizing Barry. I don't think that Barry gets Judy's goat whatsoever. She remains rational, quick-witted, logical, and coherent. These are not the signs of someone whose goat has been got. And if I thought she was into the game of antagonizing Barry I would tell her so, and I wouldn't dream of coming to her defence (not that she needs defending: that's for sure; I do it on a note of personal honouras much for myself as for her). I just don't get it, Curtis. WHAT PRAY TELL is at the bottom of your tenacious and pugnacious defence of Barry? I like the idea of protecting, supporting a friend. But are truth and friendship incompatible? I think not. So, then, I believe that by encouraging Barry to continue to argue and insult as he does in his present mode, you are stifling his chances of growing out of this, of realizing he is doing himself a terrible injustice. What possible justification could there be to implyto Barryhe has given to Judy every bit as good as she has given to himwhen you know, objectively, this is a lie? But you insist on maintaining this fraudulent implication. At all costs, it seems. You must know something about Barry that I do not know. Which is tantamount to (since you are a very credible and persuasive human being) to making him think you approve utterly of what he says (since at the very least he is, according to you, in his criticism of me, coming from the same place I am in my response to his criticism; and ditto for Judy) even as I know deep inside of you you wish Barry could get on another track altogether. I suppose your cannot reveal your strategy here, Curtis, but it seems inaccessible to ordinary human understanding. Why can't truth, beauty, goodness, sincerity, courage all be one single thing? I think they are. You don't. Nevertheless, I deny that I feel any differently in writing this than I did in writing that letter to you today. I respect and honour you as the person you are, and even your POV. But the Barry thing will always strike a false note to me. Well, maybe not a false note, but a song that seems consciously off-key. And therefore doesn't sound as nice as some of your other music. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with some comments made about me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: terasnip Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something to my friend [Barry]. ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is blameless. Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis he is not in a position to remark on the balance of blame. ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. Actually your comments on them, including in this post, demonstrate that you haven't read nearly enough. ME: You actually wrote that with a straight face? I have read more than enough, we just disagree on the perspective. I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. And here's an example: They're always mean on Barry's side. But not on mine. Moreover, many of his mean posts about me and others *are addressed to you*. If I say something negative to you about Barry, you usually defend him. If he says something negative to you about me, you almost
[FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
My left eye got a cataract about 12 years ago and a few months later had a cataract operation. Quite a light show once the surgeon removed the lens until replaced it with an artificial one. Anyway my left eye is almost 20/20 while the right about 20/400. I don't have any reading glasses but did take one pair of cheap ones to correct for the left eye and knocked the lens out of the right side for reading. But the parallax needs correction so decided a month back to drop by Site for Sore Eyes to have them make a reading pair. They actually did the last visit but they got my order wrong because I had left the frame for the sunglasses to be upgraded (yes, the frames held sunglass lenses). I have a pair of computer glasses for work as they are more mid-range than close but don't work as reading glasses. Anyhoo, they told me I needed another session with the optometrist because by law it is required every two years. Haven't been back for that. Bhairitu, It appears that you have a malefic planet aspecting or positioned in Pisces or the 12th house of your birth chart or janma kundali.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics. But God can create or destroy matter. Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said in his career. He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: This article is insightful. Hawking is past his prime. He should resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You- explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary Clinton for President?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM, John jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: Hillary is supposed to be working for Obama right now. How would it look to the general public if she decides that she will challenge the president for the next election? Been done before. Abe Lincoln hired all his adversaries as cabinet members.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
NOT wishing to suck Curtis into this, merely in appreciation of him having said it perfectly, I repost his comment below, changing nothing except to highlight the words mindnumbingly high. I mean, that's really the issue, isn't it? 16+ years. Up to 50% percent of her posts in any given week, for all that time. Who on this forum really gives a shit about the purported Barry-Judy Feud except Judy and her Pips? The rest -- wisely -- had their minds numbed by the whole thing years ago and tuned it all out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made. ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to continue the ill will. And there's another example demonstrating that you haven't read enough to say. Heck, you didn't even read what *I* just said. Reasoned, noninflammatory analysis is the opposite of demeaning. ME: So you pick 50% as insulting. OK, I am not going to quibble about the numbers. Whatever the numbers it appears to be enough to keep it rolling in the same direction. Would you like me to say that many of your posts involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made? OK that sounds right. But whatever the number of ill will posts it seems to be working. And as prolific as you are here, and as Barry focused, that 50% number is *mindnumbingly high*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Curtis to Judy: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. Dear Curtis, Of course Judy will answer you on this; but I can't help myself. And before I say anything, maybe two things are true that I currently believe are false: namely 1. that Barry does get Judy's goat; and 2. Judy really is into the game of antagonizing Barry. I don't think that Barry gets Judy's goat whatsoever. She remains rational, quick-witted, logical, and coherent. These are not the signs of someone whose goat has been got. And if I thought she was into the game of antagonizing Barry I would tell her so, and I wouldn't dream of coming to her defence (not that she needs defending: that's for sure; I do it on a note of personal honouras much for myself as for her). I just don't get it, Curtis. WHAT PRAY TELL is at the bottom of your tenacious and pugnacious defence of Barry? ME: That is not what I am doing. I am implicating Judy in the responsibility for the way they interact. She is making a case that she is a pure victim of Barry's badness. I've seen to many demeaning posts from her to buy that. You cann't get to the beginning of who started this feud it goes back like 16 years. R: I like the idea of protecting, supporting a friend. But are truth and friendship incompatible? ME: I don't see this as supporting him in the choices he has made in how to interact with Judy. I have chosen a different way that suits me. I think not. So, then, I believe that by encouraging Barry to continue to argue and insult as he does in his present mode, ME: No. This is ridiculous. In no way have I encouraged him by pointing out to Judy (which is where this all started) that she is choosing her part in the interaction. R: you are stifling his chances of growing out of this, of realizing he is doing himself a terrible injustice. What possible justification could there be to implyto Barryhe has given to Judy every bit as good as she has given to himwhen you know, objectively, this is a lie? But you insist on maintaining this fraudulent implication. At all costs, it seems. ME: First of all is growth is none of my business. Secondly I never put numbers on it till Judy did in her last post. But whatever the numbers are, she has a hand in keeping this going. That was my point. R: You must know something about Barry that I do not know. ME: Actually I believe I know something about Judy that you don't know. ME: Which is tantamount to (since you are a very credible and persuasive human being) to making him think you approve utterly of what he says (since at the very least he is, according to you, in his criticism of me, ME: Why put words in my mouth? I never said anything about it till my last post where I made it clear I think he misjudged you. Up till now that was fairly obvious by my interactions with you. But I am not in charge of how he sees people here. R: coming from the same place I am in my response to his criticism; ME: Never said that. In fact I believe you have been in a defensive posture from the beginning since he unloaded those two barrels. (no That is a loaded metaphor!) R: and ditto for Judy) even as I know deep inside of you you wish Barry could get on another track altogether. ME: You and Judy are separate cases. Except that I consider you both capable of defending yourselves without my assistance. R: I suppose your cannot reveal your strategy here, Curtis, but it seems inaccessible to ordinary human understanding. ME: My strategy is simple. I get along with Barry just fine and don't care who else does or doesn't. You can piss away a lot of time here worrying about how other people choose to interact. I try to stay on topics I enjoy writing about. This is not one of them but I am doing it out of respect for our friendship here. (And BTW writing buddies was a term of endearment, not a throwaway name.) R: Why can't truth, beauty, goodness, sincerity, courage all be one single thing? I think they are. You don't. ME: That was a manufactured, ridiculous distinction Robin. R: Nevertheless, I deny that I feel any differently in writing this than I did in writing that letter to you today. I respect and honour you as the person you are, and even your POV. But the Barry thing will always strike a false note to me. Well, maybe not a false note, but a song that seems consciously off-key. And therefore doesn't sound as nice as some of your other music. ME: So do you think that if Barry sends a shitty post to someone here, I should criticize him for it? Should I make a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement.
Maybe if you read some of the research on the neurolinguistic effects of myth and ritual for example HOW GOD CHANGES YOUR BRAIN by Andrew newberg M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman), Joseph Campbell, Jung, Bandler and Grinder, and others, you might be able to understand the relationship between religious ritual and science. But Oh! I forgot, you aren't really interested in knowing about anything, only criticizing others. I still can't understand why you post to this list. Wouldn't a list that's more your persuasion be appropriate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 30, 2011, at 5:43 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: Maharishi's Global Family Chat Summary October 28, 2011 Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement. Dr Morris began by commenting on how powerful the three Vedic performances were on the 24th, 25th, and 26th in enlivening the qualities of Dhanvantari, Hanuman and Mahalakshmi. Well thank god it had nothing to do with Hinduism. This sounds so scientific. I wonder if it affected experiments at LHC? One can almost feel the effect - at the subtle level - the god particles radiating off the pundits. Jai Guru Bev!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Judy and Barry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YjgSwiKps8 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Curtis to Judy: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. Dear Curtis, Of course Judy will answer you on this; but I can't help myself. And before I say anything, maybe two things are true that I currently believe are false: namely 1. that Barry does get Judy's goat; and 2. Judy really is into the game of antagonizing Barry. I don't think that Barry gets Judy's goat whatsoever. She remains rational, quick-witted, logical, and coherent. These are not the signs of someone whose goat has been got. And if I thought she was into the game of antagonizing Barry I would tell her so, and I wouldn't dream of coming to her defence (not that she needs defending: that's for sure; I do it on a note of personal honouras much for myself as for her). I just don't get it, Curtis. WHAT PRAY TELL is at the bottom of your tenacious and pugnacious defence of Barry? ME: That is not what I am doing. I am implicating Judy in the responsibility for the way they interact. She is making a case that she is a pure victim of Barry's badness. I've seen to many demeaning posts from her to buy that. You cann't get to the beginning of who started this feud it goes back like 16 years. R: I like the idea of protecting, supporting a friend. But are truth and friendship incompatible? ME: I don't see this as supporting him in the choices he has made in how to interact with Judy. I have chosen a different way that suits me. I think not. So, then, I believe that by encouraging Barry to continue to argue and insult as he does in his present mode, ME: No. This is ridiculous. In no way have I encouraged him by pointing out to Judy (which is where this all started) that she is choosing her part in the interaction. R: you are stifling his chances of growing out of this, of realizing he is doing himself a terrible injustice. What possible justification could there be to implyto Barryhe has given to Judy every bit as good as she has given to himwhen you know, objectively, this is a lie? But you insist on maintaining this fraudulent implication. At all costs, it seems. ME: First of all is growth is none of my business. Secondly I never put numbers on it till Judy did in her last post. But whatever the numbers are, she has a hand in keeping this going. That was my point. R: You must know something about Barry that I do not know. ME: Actually I believe I know something about Judy that you don't know. ME: Which is tantamount to (since you are a very credible and persuasive human being) to making him think you approve utterly of what he says (since at the very least he is, according to you, in his criticism of me, ME: Why put words in my mouth? I never said anything about it till my last post where I made it clear I think he misjudged you. Up till now that was fairly obvious by my interactions with you. But I am not in charge of how he sees people here. R: coming from the same place I am in my response to his criticism; ME: Never said that. In fact I believe you have been in a defensive posture from the beginning since he unloaded those two barrels. (no That is a loaded metaphor!) R: and ditto for Judy) even as I know deep inside of you you wish Barry could get on another track altogether. ME: You and Judy are separate cases. Except that I consider you both capable of defending yourselves without my assistance. R: I suppose your cannot reveal your strategy here, Curtis, but it seems inaccessible to ordinary human understanding. ME: My strategy is simple. I get along with Barry just fine and don't care who else does or doesn't. You can piss away a lot of time here worrying about how other people choose to interact. I try to stay on topics I enjoy writing about. This is not one of them but I am doing it out of respect for our friendship here. (And BTW writing buddies was a term of endearment, not a throwaway name.) R: Why can't truth, beauty, goodness, sincerity, courage all be one single thing? I think they are. You don't. ME: That was a manufactured, ridiculous distinction Robin. R: Nevertheless, I deny that I feel any differently in writing this than I did in writing that letter to you today. I respect and honour you as the person you are, and even your POV. But the Barry thing will always strike a false note to me.
[FairfieldLife] The difference between Maharishi and the Buddha
The Buddha would have laughed. [https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/310298_27\ 9603788736633_179125092117837_954346_743240339_n.jpg] :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:35 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Curtis to Judy: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. Dear Curtis, Of course Judy will answer you on this; but I can't help myself. And before I say anything, maybe two things are true that I currently believe are false: namely 1. that Barry does get Judy's goat; and 2. Judy really is into the game of antagonizing Barry. I don't think that Barry gets Judy's goat whatsoever. She remains rational, quick-witted, logical, and coherent. These are not the signs of someone whose goat has been got. What you miss - and this is hard to get if you cannot see what's actually going on - is that Judy is a chronic liar and red herring merchant. She makes shit up about people all the time, and then based on these false perspectives, weaves a story. It's very believable. Logically she uses the straw man fallacy with unusual, probably pathological, regularity and strange precision. Curtis has caught her at it numerous times, but he prefers to simply keep the peace.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:58 PM, turquoiseb wrote: NOT wishing to suck Curtis into this, merely in appreciation of him having said it perfectly, I repost his comment below, changing nothing except to highlight the words mindnumbingly high. I mean, that's really the issue, isn't it? 16+ years. Up to 50% percent of her posts in any given week, for all that time. Who on this forum really gives a shit about the purported Barry-Judy Feud except Judy and her Pips? The rest -- wisely -- had their minds numbed by the whole thing years ago and tuned it all out. As numerous psychiatric and psychological professionals have noted several times on this list, there's very likely an underlying pathology here. Most likely a personality disorder, Borderline being the most likely diagnosis (although Axis II disorders to tend to appear in groups). If you have any familiarity with this disorder, it's extremely difficult to deal with. And unmoderated lists are a haven for such people.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:03 PM, johnt wrote: Maybe if you read some of the research on the neurolinguistic effects of myth and ritual for example HOW GOD CHANGES YOUR BRAIN by Andrew newberg M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman), Joseph Campbell, Jung, Bandler and Grinder, and others, you might be able to understand the relationship between religious ritual and science. But Oh! I forgot, you aren't really interested in knowing about anything, only criticizing others. I still can't understand why you post to this list. Wouldn't a list that's more your persuasion be appropriate. History and repeatability is all I need to know that worship of gods or goddesses simply leads to incredible suffering. Pick up the paper, you can see on an almost daily basis how it torments the planet. Once we isolate the god genes better, hopefully we'll eventually be able to eradicate this disease through selective abortion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
On 10/31/2011 10:44 AM, John wrote: My left eye got a cataract about 12 years ago and a few months later had a cataract operation. Quite a light show once the surgeon removed the lens until replaced it with an artificial one. Anyway my left eye is almost 20/20 while the right about 20/400. I don't have any reading glasses but did take one pair of cheap ones to correct for the left eye and knocked the lens out of the right side for reading. But the parallax needs correction so decided a month back to drop by Site for Sore Eyes to have them make a reading pair. They actually did the last visit but they got my order wrong because I had left the frame for the sunglasses to be upgraded (yes, the frames held sunglass lenses). I have a pair of computer glasses for work as they are more mid-range than close but don't work as reading glasses. Anyhoo, they told me I needed another session with the optometrist because by law it is required every two years. Haven't been back for that. Bhairitu, It appears that you have a malefic planet aspecting or positioned in Pisces or the 12th house of your birth chart or janma kundali. A malefic does aspect the 12th but it is exalted so has minimal effect. In fact it's dasha period was the best I've experienced in my life. Anyway, astrologically it would have to be due to a transit. And astrologically is the only way it makes any sense whatsoever because it came on suddenly. It may have even been my Halloween escape movie that year as I thought my contact lens was off but checked and it was okay. Outside of the fact my mother had cataracts that came on about that age (good out I guess for the anti astrology people) there is no other reasoning. The specialist (who teaches the cataract surgery to physicians from all over the world) thought the right eye might get one too but so far it hasn't developed one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: RESPONSE: Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. [Curtis to Judy] Well, my friend, this *is* bullshit. Because it implies some equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity. ME: No it doesn't. It means he went after you enthusiastically. It denies the possibility for any equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity:. Robin2: Enthusiastically: I reject this word as applying to Barry in any way whatsoever. What about douchebaggery, Curtis? Is that a word you would ever consider in the context of describing Barry's reaction to Robin? Think about it. Shit, man, if I ever felt enthusiasm in Barry's response to me, no matter how negative it was, I would rejoice. Did you hear that, Curtis? I would rejoice. Now tell me once again: It means he went after you enthusiasticallyunless you are using that word in its most pejoratively connotative sense. Robin1 Barry has scrupulously avoided any real contact with me, so as to demonstrate he is willing to stand behind what he says. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. No, Curtis, Barry was giving it to Robin in a form of scattershot carelessness and impetuous pique which could never be understood by any honest bystander as giving it to me with both barrels. ME: OK if that characterization works better for you. I guess we have a different view of what the analogy both barrels implies. For me it is full-on aggression. Robin2: Full-on aggression. Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in full-on aggression. I invite him to deal with me with full-on aggression. WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post-Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. Robn1: F**k me. I *wish* Barry would give it to me with both barrels. But he never will, Curtis. ME: You are including more in the metaphor than I did. I don't know why you are taking me to task for having a slightly different take on what both barrels includes. Robin2: Enthusiastically and full-on aggressionthis ain't no metaphor. Robin1: Now look: I take back nothing of what I have just said in that letter; I will only say that this invidious (and implied) comparison is baffling to me. ME: I didn't say it was justified, I meant it was enthusiastic. Obviously given the difference in our interactions I didn't agree with his take on you. But it was both forceful and hostile which is what the image of both barrels means to me. Robin2: Give me an instance where Barry's criticism of Robinhis characteristic onesare forceful. If they are forceful they have the chance to be true. And that very much interests me. No, your responses to me are forceful. If I felt the 'force' of Barry's critiques of me, I would have to respect what he was saying, even if I chose not to believe it. Enthusiasm again: well this for me is the conduction of something which, at least in intention, is positive. I have not felt Barry's enthusiasm. Has anyone else out there felt this? Oops! shouldn't be asking that question: I am likely to get both barrels. Robin1: Just out with it: Stand behind this one declarative statement: Although I like both of them, in my judgment Barry is giving it to Robin in principle at least the same way Robin is giving it to Barry. ME: I think he took an instant dislike to you and spent some time expressing it. I don't believe that his initial attack was warranted and it put you in a weird defensive posture. You tried to work with it to get past that hostility but it did not work. Barry is not going to budge about his initial negative assessment of you no matter what you respond with. So the two barrels don't imply that there is a balance in how you have related to each other. He went after you and I believe you found it perplexing at first. But now that you know who you are dealing with you can decide how much attention to spend on interactions with him. This is a plant that will not grow without water. Robin2; On one level I accept this. Because I do recall his initial negative adjudication of my posts was devoid of affect or screwy venom. It put you in a weird defensive posture. True. But not such that it distorted or perversely influenced the way I countered his criticism. I wanted to draw him out; he refused to do this. And I know, unless you were dissembling big time with me, you were in accordance
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
Yep, I am luckyenlightenment is next :) From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:32 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: You ARE enlightened. Â I have similar stories with my glasses as I come late to wearing them (i.e., middle age). Â I clean them with whatever shirt I am wearing most times or water and kleenex or hand sanitizer if I happen to have any. Â They are not prescription. Â I lose them and break them on a regular basis. Consider yourself lucky that you can get by with drug store reading glasses. With me, one eye needs more magnification than the other, so I have to have prescription glasses if I want to be able to read for more than a couple minutes without getting a headache.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Robin2: Full-on aggression. Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in full-on aggression. I invite him to deal with me with full-on aggression. WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post- Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. (large snippage) I think a blindspot you may be missing is that we've seen and experienced a good number of self-proclaimed TM enlightened folks here already, often acting out in some stereotypical fashion. I suspect given your own verbosity and long-windedness this simply highlights the pain we've already experienced here from having to deal with such individuals. A simple look at one of your posts is probably enough to set off this type of person. I mean I've read the Discovery of Grace and even I cannot bear to read through your often lengthy posts the whole way. It's like nails scraping against the akasha. Really, you've changed little from your early days as a hypomanic over-rounder/writer. I'm not saying this to be mean, but simply to point out how you may be pushing other people's buttons without even realizing it. You've probably heard the words those who talk, don't know but somehow Lao Tzu was silent on those who cannot STFU. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Making a 99% button
On 10/30/2011 11:44 AM, Bhairitu wrote: On 10/28/2011 04:02 PM, Bhairitu wrote: After the failure of the 2.5 buttons to pry open I dropped by the Michael's arts and crafts store and found a 3 pack of 3.5 plastic buttons. They have the Creatology label on them and are not on the Michael's web site. Unlike the 2.5 button these were better thought out and have a notch on the rim of the back disk that you can insert a small screw driver into to pry the two disks apart. These may be the Darice buttons you can find online but rebranded. You may have to ask the staff at Michael's to locate it and tell them you are looking for a picture button because that is what they called it. Here's a link to a PDF file that along with a paint or graphics program you can use as a template. It was made for Photo Shop but also works in other paint programs: http://www.americanbuttonmachines.com/files/Button_Size_Templates/3.5_inch_Template.pdf I used the Serif graphics program to create my I'm one of the 99% button and printed to a sheet a paper (instructions for proper printing are on the template). Then cut out the disk and put it in the button. Now I'll see what reactions I get. ;-) So far, no reactions. Downtown there were hardly any people yesterday and today being it was the farmer's market and a Halloween thang I still got no comments. I've never seen anyone else with a OWS button or t-shirt. The t-shirt will be next but wanted to find a color t-shirt to iron on the text and they're a bit out of season or when I did find them not the color I was looking for. Around here the reactions wound more likely be I like your button or where did you get that? I've been looking for one. ;-) First reaction today and that was the attendant at the supermarket self checkout. She was just curious to see what it said and then the machine spat out my dollar bill so we joked that I must actually be one of the 1% because I was throwing money away. The machine didn't like that bill so she got another one and it didn't like it either. She went back and got 4 quarters and those worked. So that machine must be on the fritz though it took the first dollar I inserted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement.
Apart from Gods and Goddesses, how about devotion to Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Yidams:??; as well as entities designed to generate specific changes such as the Green Tara - say eradicating diseases and eliminating poverty. Why are such Buddhist practices excused from your criticisms, Vaj? How about life after physical death? Are you a believer in that? http://www.purelandbuddhism.com/amitabha.JPG --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:03 PM, johnt wrote: Maybe if you read some of the research on the neurolinguistic effects of myth and ritual for example HOW GOD CHANGES YOUR BRAIN by Andrew newberg M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman), Joseph Campbell, Jung, Bandler and Grinder, and others, you might be able to understand the relationship between religious ritual and science. But Oh! I forgot, you aren't really interested in knowing about anything, only criticizing others. I still can't understand why you post to this list. Wouldn't a list that's more your persuasion be appropriate. History and repeatability is all I need to know that worship of gods or goddesses simply leads to incredible suffering. Pick up the paper, you can see on an almost daily basis how it torments the planet. Once we isolate the god genes better, hopefully we'll eventually be able to eradicate this disease through selective abortion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President?
Redemption through condemnation...that is part of the shtick here :) From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President? On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com wrote: This redeems your other post, barely. From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton for President? Why do people say 'Grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding! -- Actress Betty White. Of course I come to FFL for redemption. You see I don't exist, I don't have merit, I cannot survive without the approval of others. Yeah, really.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 10/31/2011 10:44 AM, John wrote: My left eye got a cataract about 12 years ago and a few months later had a cataract operation. Quite a light show once the surgeon removed the lens until replaced it with an artificial one. Anyway my left eye is almost 20/20 while the right about 20/400. I don't have any reading glasses but did take one pair of cheap ones to correct for the left eye and knocked the lens out of the right side for reading. But the parallax needs correction so decided a month back to drop by Site for Sore Eyes to have them make a reading pair. They actually did the last visit but they got my order wrong because I had left the frame for the sunglasses to be upgraded (yes, the frames held sunglass lenses). I have a pair of computer glasses for work as they are more mid-range than close but don't work as reading glasses. Anyhoo, they told me I needed another session with the optometrist because by law it is required every two years. Haven't been back for that. Bhairitu, It appears that you have a malefic planet aspecting or positioned in Pisces or the 12th house of your birth chart or janma kundali. A malefic does aspect the 12th but it is exalted so has minimal effect. In fact it's dasha period was the best I've experienced in my life. Anyway, astrologically it would have to be due to a transit. And astrologically is the only way it makes any sense whatsoever because it came on suddenly. It may have even been my Halloween escape movie that year as I thought my contact lens was off but checked and it was okay. Outside of the fact my mother had cataracts that came on about that age (good out I guess for the anti astrology people) there is no other reasoning. The specialist (who teaches the cataract surgery to physicians from all over the world) thought the right eye might get one too but so far it hasn't developed one. So, that would make you a Leo ascendant. Mars is the yogakaraka and exalted in Capricorn.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Yifu wrote: Apart from Gods and Goddesses, how about devotion to Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Yidams:??; as well as entities designed to generate specific changes such as the Green Tara - say eradicating diseases and eliminating poverty. Why are such Buddhist practices excused from your criticisms, Vaj? How about life after physical death? Are you a believer in that? There's authentic devotion and then there's fabricated devotion. IME fabricated devotion to any thing is of little help. Such fabricated devotion is what religion is all about. Authentically a buddha is none other than ones own natural condition.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Or is it? Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words, and many others, haha, and at that point, there is no need for someone like me to step in because she called it and many times rightfully so. (Judy is goddess to me.) I am sure if I was hanging out in Amsterdam with the Turq, at a coffee house, rolling a...uh, whatever they have to roll there, and I said I had to take my 20, he may roll his eyes, at the same time respect my time into the Transcendence, as I feel that what works for me. I do not live TM like a cult and if other's do, that is their problem and not mine. : ) Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set, yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally. What you are really listing are the people on FFL who don't threaten lil' Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: LOL. I like your paragraph about this being an intimidating place. My perspective is different. I think it's only an intimidating place for those who feel as if they have an image that needs protecting. Those who have a more fluid personality, and feel no need to con- stantly defend themselves and their view of who and what they are don't seem to find it intimidating at all. In that ilk I include notables such as Curtis, you, Alex, Rick, Marek, Sal, Susan/wayback, tartbrain, Denise, Xeno, and many others, who never seem to worry about it. The ability to just be oneself seems to be its own reward.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
I find Zebra's hypothesis fascinating (regarding the clash of Morphogenetic fields - between Christianity and the Vedic M-field) and worthy of investigation; but my tentative conclusion will differ from Zebras: my conjecture - Jesus will eventually be regarded as another God but not GOD and Christianity will be absorbed within Sanatana Dharma. Worship of the Gods (and Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Yidams, for the Buddhists) is here to stay. ... However, Vaj; your statements go against the grain of much of Buddhism and you make a feeble attempt to skirt the issue of Gods by saying that Buddhists don't worship Gods. They don't use that word but many Tibetan Buddhists worship physically discarnate entities such as Chenrezig and the Green Tara (and such worship is not entirely for wisdom). In essense, you are a phoney Buddhist, a heretic, and a apostate to Buddhism, worthy of being shunnedor worse. ... http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_3.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Robin2: Full-on aggression. Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in full-on aggression. I invite him to deal with me with full-on aggression. WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post- Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. (large snippage) I think a blindspot you may be missing is that we've seen and experienced a good number of self-proclaimed TM enlightened folks here already, often acting out in some stereotypical fashion. I suspect given your own verbosity and long-windedness this simply highlights the pain we've already experienced here from having to deal with such individuals. A simple look at one of your posts is probably enough to set off this type of person. I mean I've read the Discovery of Grace and even I cannot bear to read through your often lengthy posts the whole way. It's like nails scraping against the akasha. Really, you've changed little from your early days as a hypomanic over-rounder/writer. I'm not saying this to be mean, but simply to point out how you may be pushing other people's buttons without even realizing it. You've probably heard the words those who talk, don't know but somehow Lao Tzu was silent on those who cannot STFU. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics. There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe started out as a quantum wave function. MMY favored this theory when he was alive. The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary world for the wave function to exist. This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the Big Bang. Thus, matter, time and space was created. But God can create or destroy matter. I agree with this. Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said in his career. IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books. In that regard, he may be shrewd. He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else?? Yes, for the reasons given above. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: This article is insightful. Hawking is past his prime. He should resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You- explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
[FairfieldLife] Re: Prime Minster Dr Bevan Morris reported on recent advances in the Movement.
Lapse of logic on your part, Vaj. Your'e saying that devotion to the Buddha (the wisdom orientation) is authentic and not fabricated; but you failed to feature how devotion to the Green Taras fits in since She's worshipped for various other reasons besides wisdom: for example, eradicating diseases, counteracting disasters and bad karma in general, eliminating poverty, etc. So from your perspective, devotion to the Green Tara is fabricated. Interesting. Nice that you alone determine what and whom is Authentic. ... My Buddhist teacher Hsuan Hua worshipped Kwan Yin for the wisdom aspect AND for counteracting evil influences (he says). So he would be a fabricated teacher in your book, and inauthentic? http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ze32.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Yifu wrote: Apart from Gods and Goddesses, how about devotion to Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Yidams:??; as well as entities designed to generate specific changes such as the Green Tara - say eradicating diseases and eliminating poverty. Why are such Buddhist practices excused from your criticisms, Vaj? How about life after physical death? Are you a believer in that? There's authentic devotion and then there's fabricated devotion. IME fabricated devotion to any thing is of little help. Such fabricated devotion is what religion is all about. Authentically a buddha is none other than ones own natural condition.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online
So, you're appealing to the The Mahareeshee says so argument. Interesting parallel to the Bible Says So tactic: http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html ... The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David Deutsch. ... Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a Personality? or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is the nature of that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an infinite regress (needing another outside observer to observe that entity, and so on;turtles all the way down). ... The God of the gaps tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a God is needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis). The Many Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less supplanted the Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and this viewpoint by no means needs an outside observer since the Multiverse is it's own Observer. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics. There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe started out as a quantum wave function. MMY favored this theory when he was alive. The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary world for the wave function to exist. This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the Big Bang. Thus, matter, time and space was created. But God can create or destroy matter. I agree with this. Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said in his career. IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books. In that regard, he may be shrewd. He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else?? Yes, for the reasons given above. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: This article is insightful. Hawking is past his prime. He should resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated with. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You- explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
When I learned TM, it was not introduced to me as a secret club. LOL. The world of the cost was easily explained as the same as anyone needing to pay for things to live in the society. We pay the grocery clerks, lawyers, doctors, and even police, heck why do we need to pay police for protection, when we could just hit the stealing bastard (a thief) over the head with a baseball bat? LOL. The secret mantra is only mentioned as secret I think, once one has learned? Gee, it has been a few years since that lesson. I only remember the mantra and it is mine. hahaha. Seriously, you raise good questions and I fully respect your view point. Yeah, why? ps. Yahoo is reposting old posts from a week a go or more. See date below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment.  If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret?  Why is the technique so secret?  Why isn't it in a book?  Or is it?  Why has no one breached the secrecy?  Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret?  Protecting your investment?  How self-centered is this?  Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world?  It reeks of BS. From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing  If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words, and many others, haha, and at that point, there is no need for someone like me to step in because she called it and many times rightfully so. (Judy is goddess to me.) I am sure if I was hanging out in Amsterdam with the Turq, at a coffee house, rolling a...uh, whatever they have to roll there, and I said I had to take my 20, he may roll his eyes, at the same time respect my time into the Transcendence, as I feel that what works for me. I do not live TM like a cult and if other's do, that is their problem and not mine. : ) Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set, yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally. What you are really listing are the people on FFL who don't threaten lil' Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: LOL. I like your paragraph about this being an intimidating place. My perspective is different. I think it's only an intimidating place for those who feel as if they have an image that needs protecting. Those who have a more fluid personality, and feel no need to con- stantly defend themselves and their view of who and what they are don't seem to find it intimidating at all. In that ilk I include notables such as Curtis, you, Alex, Rick, Marek, Sal, Susan/wayback, tartbrain, Denise, Xeno, and many others, who never seem to worry about it. The ability to just be oneself seems to be its own reward.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
Yes, I saw. Actually, I'm way behind in viewing so will probably delete most of them. My real life intruded. This list is prolific. I was asking in part, because I had to sign a confidentiality agreement when I learned the Amma IAM meditation. Big red fucking flag which I consciously evaluated as I was sitting there, but decided to go through with because that was part of my deal with myself: Follow through to get the full experience. Actually, I wonder what my teenage daughter signed in her special class. I threw everything out so can't remember now but it was a simple combination of relaxing yoga postures known to all, plus a visualization (the kind where you think of yourself in a meadow) known to all, plus a silent meditation of our choice. It wasn't that special as I remember (I threw it all out on principle after the fact) but it was stressed that everything had to be done in a very specific order to achieve the results. I guess the order is what they were protecting. Confidentiality agreement? Seriously? Yuk. True spirituality does not involve this type of BS. Occupy the Domes? Seriously? If they were public, they would be full. What reality are those dome goers in? Sounds like visions of people lost in the grandiose idea that they are saviours. Could be worse. That was a good one. From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing When I learned TM, it was not introduced to me as a secret club. LOL. The world of the cost was easily explained as the same as anyone needing to pay for things to live in the society. We pay the grocery clerks, lawyers, doctors, and even police, heck why do we need to pay police for protection, when we could just hit the stealing bastard (a thief) over the head with a baseball bat? LOL. The secret mantra is only mentioned as secret I think, once one has learned? Gee, it has been a few years since that lesson. I only remember the mantra and it is mine. hahaha. Seriously, you raise good questions and I fully respect your view point. Yeah, why? ps. Yahoo is reposting old posts from a week a go or more. See date below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment.  If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret?  Why is the technique so secret?  Why isn't it in a book?  Or is it?  Why has no one breached the secrecy?  Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret?  Protecting your investment?  How self-centered is this?  Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world?  It reeks of BS. From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing  If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words, and many others, haha, and at that point, there is no need for someone like me to step in because she called it and many times rightfully so. (Judy is goddess to me.) I am sure if I was hanging out in Amsterdam with the Turq, at a coffee house, rolling a...uh, whatever they have to roll there, and I said I had to take my 20, he may roll his eyes, at the same time respect my time into the Transcendence, as I feel that what works for me. I do not live TM like a cult and if other's do, that is their problem and not mine. : ) Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set, yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Experience of Enlightenment
On 10/31/2011 12:13 PM, John wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 10/31/2011 10:44 AM, John wrote: My left eye got a cataract about 12 years ago and a few months later had a cataract operation. Quite a light show once the surgeon removed the lens until replaced it with an artificial one. Anyway my left eye is almost 20/20 while the right about 20/400. I don't have any reading glasses but did take one pair of cheap ones to correct for the left eye and knocked the lens out of the right side for reading. But the parallax needs correction so decided a month back to drop by Site for Sore Eyes to have them make a reading pair. They actually did the last visit but they got my order wrong because I had left the frame for the sunglasses to be upgraded (yes, the frames held sunglass lenses). I have a pair of computer glasses for work as they are more mid-range than close but don't work as reading glasses. Anyhoo, they told me I needed another session with the optometrist because by law it is required every two years. Haven't been back for that. Bhairitu, It appears that you have a malefic planet aspecting or positioned in Pisces or the 12th house of your birth chart or janma kundali. A malefic does aspect the 12th but it is exalted so has minimal effect. In fact it's dasha period was the best I've experienced in my life. Anyway, astrologically it would have to be due to a transit. And astrologically is the only way it makes any sense whatsoever because it came on suddenly. It may have even been my Halloween escape movie that year as I thought my contact lens was off but checked and it was okay. Outside of the fact my mother had cataracts that came on about that age (good out I guess for the anti astrology people) there is no other reasoning. The specialist (who teaches the cataract surgery to physicians from all over the world) thought the right eye might get one too but so far it hasn't developed one. So, that would make you a Leo ascendant. Mars is the yogakaraka and exalted in Capricorn. Nope, not a Leo ascendant. From the limited amount of information I gave you it would be difficult to figure out the ascendant.
[FairfieldLife] Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world
article in NewScientist ~ Physics Math Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealedthe-capi\ talist-network-that-runs-the-world.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capita\ list-network-that-runs-the-world.html
[FairfieldLife] Daughter of Ravi Shankar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CnhcGpmH9Yfeature=related
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
Personally, I thought the nod to my contributions was nice...I consider their value basically worthless, but that's the kind of humble person I am :) And yes, I find this place intimidating - mostly because of the unabashed and fearless willingness of the participants to be who they are or who they want to think they are...it doesn't really matter. And, in general, my intimidation is a direct projection of my unresolved personal pathologies. Not for this forum. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: If anyone notices, I have torn at the Turq many times. I do recall the Turq has mentioned some unflattering words towards obba too. The difference is I do not spend my whole time taking every one of his words as a pain in the ass, and if he makes any sense, I leave him alone haha. What shocks me the most is when a TM Meditator, tears his ass as some kind of outside the movement freak. That is disturbing to me, because if one is getting inner peace, why would one feel threatened by Turq's comments about TM, to the point of lashing out? You seem to have bought into two of the false memes Barry has done his best to establish. First, by far the majority of the criticism directed at Barry is not about his comments concerning TM, it's about his incredibly obnoxious behavior toward others on FFL. There are plenty of TM critics here who don't come in for the same disapprobation that Barry does, because they treat others like human beings rather than like garbage. Second, the notion that TMers are threatened by what he has to say about TM/MMY/the TMO is absurd. That one disagrees with somebody's view or disapproves of their behavior, or both, doesn't mean they feel threatened by it. Judy has pointed out many times the Turq has made an error in his use of TM words I think you may be thinking of Vaj rather than Barry here. Vaj is the one who most often gets TM words wrong. Barry is doing a pretty good job showing me the dark side of the movement mind set What Barry primarily shows the dark side of is Barry. yet I still like my TM..so far, I think. ; ) This is where, Barry, can be free of my not, theaten lil Barry and his shriveled heart. Take another look at the exchange you were commenting on: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I am pretty sure any and all of them would react just like the rest of us do, if you decided to lie and deliberately distort their words and criticize them personally. What you are really listing are the people on FFL who don't threaten lil' Barry and his shriveled heart. This is on the nose. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: LOL. I like your paragraph about this being an intimidating place. And yet... My perspective is different. I think it's only an intimidating place for those who feel as if they have an image that needs protecting. Those who have a more fluid personality, and feel no need to con- stantly defend themselves and their view of who and what they are don't seem to find it intimidating at all. In that ilk I include notables such as Curtis, you, Alex, Rick, Marek, Sal, Susan/wayback, tartbrain, Denise, Xeno, and many others, who never seem to worry about it. The ability to just be oneself seems to be its own reward. ...do you think I feel intimidated by FFL? No? Then why am I not on his list? Note also, by the way, that while he does put Denise on his list of those not intimidated by FFL, it was her confession that *she finds FFL intimidating* that initiated this exchange. Bottom line, he wasn't really paying attention to what was being said, nor did he have anything insightful to point out. He simply felt the need to lash out at the people who intimidate *him*. And that, in a nutshell, is why so many here criticize Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Dear Vaj, Seems definitive to me. I only wish you had posted this before all the posts I wrote today. I am a busy man; and I have wasted my time. But, better late than never. You are a total enigma to me, Vaj, so even if there is merit in all that you say here, you say it as if disembodied from your flesh and blood. Sure, that's an easy way out for me; but believe it or not, I resist all this cosmic-enlightenment-Maharishi-TM thing. With a vengeance. So, if I seem to be making myself over into another disguise which differs little from the one when I passed myself off as enlightened, well that is kind of tragic, isn't it. You are existing and writing behind a massive and impenetrable wall, Vaj; and if I am to respond honestly and sincerely to your post hereregardless of its validity in terms of the information and point of viewthen, forgive me, I will have to ask you to reveal yourself. Because a ghost would be more prepossessing to me as an arbiter of the truth about myself than you, in your present persona, can be. I know: I am just being paranoid hereas you have said in the past when I have asked you to unmask yourself. Nevertheless, until you humanize yourself I will choose to not deal straight-on with what you say here. Although, believe me, I have pondered it very carefully. If in my long dialogues with Curtis there is the slightest sense of lording it over on people; if there is anything but a human being giving it his bestwithout once reverting to the authority of his state of consciousness (which presently is extremely fallible and imperfect), then I have committed a grave error of judgmentabout myself. I have felt I was just a person, a thinker, a friend throughout the entire course of my posts with Curtis. And I think anyone on the outside, who did not know I once thought i was enlightenedif you deleted all references to this factwould never imagine what you say is so easily projected onto me. In other words, Vaj, if I never did disclose that I was once in Unity Consciousnessand there were no references to thisI defy anyone to have an experience of me [based upon my posts] that says: Oh boy: this guy is acting like some disgraced former guru. And he *has* an agenda, See for yourself. He is trying to *influence* us. True or not true, Vaj? If you are right and I am wrong, that of course means something. I shouldn't dare to show my face if I am still at the business of giving out my darshan of perfect individuation (or whatever BS I put in that book you refer to). Appreciate your dropping me a line. But the context of your presentation of yourself still seems to me to be the occultation of the personality. That said, I do read very carefully all that you say. As have here. As you see I started off ironic here, but I have ended up being the real Robin. At least I hope I have. This at least was my firm intention. Thanks for the thoughtful reflection, and implied counsel. Maskedzebra --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Robin2: Full-on aggression. Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in full-on aggression. I invite him to deal with me with full-on aggression. WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post- Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. (large snippage) I think a blindspot you may be missing is that we've seen and experienced a good number of self-proclaimed TM enlightened folks here already, often acting out in some stereotypical fashion. I suspect given your own verbosity and long-windedness this simply highlights the pain we've already experienced here from having to deal with such individuals. A simple look at one of your posts is probably enough to set off this type of person. I mean I've read the Discovery of Grace and even I cannot bear to read through your often lengthy posts the whole way. It's like nails scraping against the akasha. Really, you've changed little from your early days as a hypomanic over-rounder/writer. I'm not saying this to be mean, but simply to point out how you may be pushing other people's buttons without even realizing it. You've probably heard the words those who talk, don't know but somehow Lao Tzu was silent on those who cannot STFU. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: No need to explain, Vaj, we've got your (case) number.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Nablusoss,could you help with an offer to help? You're an old TM teacher? Turqb is an ex-patriot living in Europe. Like several of us here, you be an old TM patriot. You're both living in Europe. You'd be available to check Turqb's meditation? Could you help bring him in out of the cold? That would be real nice. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Om, the 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts may need some volunteers to be arrested, just like at 'Occupy Wallstreet'. Outside the Fairfield Domes meditating. Squatters trespassing willing to be arrested protesting the TM-Rajas handling of the dome numbers. Tent meditators outside the Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes Turqb, could you volunteer for the high-risk arrest spots outside the domes? You don't seem to have many responsibilities in life. You know, not married, no children, no real livestock to chore, nothing to care for. Could you help us all out with this and come back? In the end this could be something you'd really feel good about yourself with. You'd be of great use. The 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts could use you right now outside the Domes. What you are asking is IMO tantamount to asking me to stand in a crowd watching a person standing on a 20th-floor ledge announcing to the world that not only can he fly, but that in doing so he will create majestic Woo Woo Waves that will create world peace, and then shouting, Go for it, big guy. Show the world that they're wrong and you're right. Take that first step and prove it to them once and for all. Fly, Forrest, fly! Not meaning this harshly or anything, but I actually *DO* consider anyone who still believes in the Maharishi Effect more than a little mentally challenged. Avoiding politically- correct euphemisms, I might even class them as retarded. You're asking me to encourage retarded people to act retarded. And telling me that I'll feel good about myself if I do. While you may be correct in me not having many of the responsibilities of taking care of wife, children, and/or sheep that I have developed the same overfondness towards as some on this forum, I still *DO* feel a certain sense of responsibility about my actions in this world. Assisting in the perpetuation of a lie violates that sense of responsibility.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Friends of meditating, I'm afraid that if we don't whip this right now with meditating in the domes and the dome numbers we just might lose the whole thing. I would personally be grateful to you if you would join us now, join us meditating at the Domes in the parking lot if not inside. This is not a usual fight. People often fight for money or land and things but we are meditating for each other here. Come join us in this rare fight. Occupy the Domes! -Buck in FF Sync up. Take a moment, 7:30am and 5:00pm Be there now! The immediate urgent priority for world peace is to join the Invincible America Course at MUM. Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world. Om, the 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts may need some volunteers to be arrested, just like at 'Occupy Wallstreet'. Outside the Fairfield Domes meditating. Squatters trespassing willing to be arrested protesting the TM-Rajas handling of the dome numbers. Tent meditators outside the Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes Turqb, could you volunteer for the high-risk arrest spots outside the domes? You don't seem to have many responsibilities in life. You know, not married, no children, no real livestock to chore, nothing to care for. Could you help us all out with this and come back? In the end this could be something you'd really feel good about yourself with. You'd be of great use. The 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts could use you right now outside the Domes. CurtisDb, would you please come back to meditation. You could be very helpful if you'd just come to meditation again. These are serious times. Come back. You don't even have to believe you'd do any good but the science shows good you would. It may be now or never. Like read the fricking news or read the science on global climate change. Cast down the blues and come change the course of things with us spiritually. Even if the TM-Rajas won't let you back in, come meditate in the parking lot as part of Occupy the Dome in Fairfield. We could use your help with the numbers. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Does my skin count, as a tent? Along the same lines, I sometimes pitch a tent in the presence of bodacious domes. Does that count? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Or, bring a tent to meditate in if you can't meditate in the domes. 7:30am and 5pm It would be a very large help if people would come and do their meditation in their cars in the parking lots outside by the Domes if they are not eligible any longer for getting in the domes. -Buck Om, the Dome numbers must really be on the skids. They have not updated the tallies since September. http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Live a life worth living together in all wealth and fulfillment and create a heavenly, affluent nation and world. Come to meditation right now! -Buck in FF The impulse of Occupy the Fairfield Domes is to support those laws of nature that will create comfort and abundance for everyone in society, supporting and nourishing all. The deepest level of nourishment is in establishing a base of massive spiritual coherence. With Massive support for Occupy Wall Street in many cities around the world, it's time for the Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City community to stand up (or to sit down) in full support of abundance for
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Or is it? These are incredibly frustrating questions to try to answer for a TMer, because the bottom line is, you can't grasp why it's a secret until you learn it yourself (and not everyone does even then). And of course that sounds like total B.S. The problem is that unlikely as it seems, it's true. The nature of TM is such that it can't be learned properly from a book. There have been a couple of books (not by TM teachers) that purported to explain how it's done, but you'd be *extremely* unlikely to pick it up correctly from words on a page. (I'm talking about the *method* here, not the mantras; the mantras are a whole 'nother issue.) Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Ah, come on, Denise, that's not fair. We all wish everyone could learn it for free. Most of us realize learning it properly requires a trained teacher, though, and that trying to explain how it's done outside the context of standard TM instruction by a trained teacher is not likely to lead to proper practice. I'm making it sound as if TM is *difficult*, but in fact it's just the opposite; it's easier than you can imagine. And paradoxically, that's why learning it requires someone who has been trained to teach it, because they know how to lead you into the experience of effortlessness. Every other skill we learn requires some degree of effort, so the knack of letting go of all effort is novel and takes a novel approach to convey. As ridiculously easy as TM is, it's also easy to fall into making it more difficult than it is, and then you don't get the benefits. Unlike most other things in life, the less you know about the method before you learn it, the more likely the instruction is to click right from the start. In a very real sense, by declining to try to explain TM, we're protecting *your* investment should you ever decide to learn it from a trained TM teacher. Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. There really is no specific secret that could be released, first of all. If there's a secret, it's the whole method of instruction, and that requires training. Second, most of us here, at least, think the TMO could have done a more effective job of getting people to practice TM. But that's a different issue. I don't expect this to convince you. All I can say is that I stand behind what I just wrote 100 percent.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everyone here in my FFL mind
Beautiful, go Zebras. Boo, disembodied enigmatic phantoms/ghosts/et's aka Vakrabuddhi.. On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:29 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Dear Vaj, Seems definitive to me. I only wish you had posted this before all the posts I wrote today. I am a busy man; and I have wasted my time. But, better late than never. You are a total enigma to me, Vaj, so even if there is merit in all that you say here, you say it as if disembodied from your flesh and blood. Sure, that's an easy way out for me; but believe it or not, I resist all this cosmic-enlightenment-Maharishi-TM thing. With a vengeance. So, if I seem to be making myself over into another disguise which differs little from the one when I passed myself off as enlightened, well that is kind of tragic, isn't it. You are existing and writing behind a massive and impenetrable wall, Vaj; and if I am to respond honestly and sincerely to your post here—regardless of its validity in terms of the information and point of view—then, forgive me, I will have to ask you to reveal yourself. Because a ghost would be more prepossessing to me as an arbiter of the truth about myself than you, in your present persona, can be. I know: I am just being paranoid here—as you have said in the past when I have asked you to unmask yourself. Nevertheless, until you humanize yourself I will choose to not deal straight-on with what you say here. Although, believe me, I have pondered it very carefully. If in my long dialogues with Curtis there is the slightest sense of lording it over on people; if there is anything but a human being giving it his best—without once reverting to the authority of his state of consciousness (which presently is extremely fallible and imperfect), then I have committed a grave error of judgment–about myself. I have felt I was just a person, a thinker, a friend throughout the entire course of my posts with Curtis. And I think anyone on the outside, who did not know I once thought i was enlightened—if you deleted all references to this fact—would never imagine what you say is so easily projected onto me. In other words, Vaj, if I never did disclose that I was once in Unity Consciousness—and there were no references to this—I defy anyone to have an experience of me [based upon my posts] that says: Oh boy: this guy is acting like some disgraced former guru. And he *has* an agenda, See for yourself. He is trying to *influence* us. True or not true, Vaj? If you are right and I am wrong, that of course means something. I shouldn't dare to show my face if I am still at the business of giving out my darshan of perfect individuation (or whatever BS I put in that book you refer to). Appreciate your dropping me a line. But the context of your presentation of yourself still seems to me to be the occultation of the personality. That said, I do read very carefully all that you say. As have here. As you see I started off ironic here, but I have ended up being the real Robin. At least I hope I have. This at least was my firm intention. Thanks for the thoughtful reflection, and implied counsel. Maskedzebra --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:53 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Robin2: Full-on aggression. Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in full-on aggression. I invite him to deal with me with full-on aggression. WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post- Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. (large snippage) I think a blindspot you may be missing is that we've seen and experienced a good number of self-proclaimed TM enlightened folks here already, often acting out in some stereotypical fashion. I suspect given your own verbosity and long-windedness this simply highlights the pain we've already experienced here from having to deal with such individuals. A simple look at one of your posts is probably enough to set off this type of person. I mean I've read the Discovery of Grace and even I cannot bear to read through your often lengthy posts the whole way. It's like nails scraping against the akasha. Really, you've changed little from your early days as a hypomanic over-rounder/writer. I'm not saying this to be mean, but simply
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
LOL... On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Nablusoss,could you help with an offer to help? You're an old TM teacher? Turqb is an ex-patriot living in Europe. Like several of us here, you be an old TM patriot. You're both living in Europe. You'd be available to check Turqb's meditation? Could you help bring him in out of the cold? That would be real nice. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Om, the 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts may need some volunteers to be arrested, just like at 'Occupy Wallstreet'. Outside the Fairfield Domes meditating. Squatters trespassing willing to be arrested protesting the TM-Rajas handling of the dome numbers. Tent meditators outside the Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes Turqb, could you volunteer for the high-risk arrest spots outside the domes? You don't seem to have many responsibilities in life. You know, not married, no children, no real livestock to chore, nothing to care for. Could you help us all out with this and come back? In the end this could be something you'd really feel good about yourself with. You'd be of great use. The 'Occupy the Domes' enthusiasts could use you right now outside the Domes. What you are asking is IMO tantamount to asking me to stand in a crowd watching a person standing on a 20th-floor ledge announcing to the world that not only can he fly, but that in doing so he will create majestic Woo Woo Waves that will create world peace, and then shouting, Go for it, big guy. Show the world that they're wrong and you're right. Take that first step and prove it to them once and for all. Fly, Forrest, fly! Not meaning this harshly or anything, but I actually *DO* consider anyone who still believes in the Maharishi Effect more than a little mentally challenged. Avoiding politically- correct euphemisms, I might even class them as retarded. You're asking me to encourage retarded people to act retarded. And telling me that I'll feel good about myself if I do. While you may be correct in me not having many of the responsibilities of taking care of wife, children, and/or sheep that I have developed the same overfondness towards as some on this forum, I still *DO* feel a certain sense of responsibility about my actions in this world. Assisting in the perpetuation of a lie violates that sense of responsibility.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world
Yeah scary stuff, be afraid - very afraid. On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:16 PM, anatol_zinc anatol_z...@yahoo.com wrote: article in NewScientist ~ Physics Math Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy…… http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world
Not scary, we know they've been doing it for years. But the best governments money can buy have let it all get out of hand. That is part of what OWS is about, reigning these fuckers in! The world is for the people not a few big corporations and banks. IOW, the needs of the many outweigh the needs and desires of these corporate elite. On 10/31/2011 02:42 PM, Ravi Yogi wrote: Yeah scary stuff, be afraid - very afraid. On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:16 PM, anatol_zincanatol_z...@yahoo.com wrote: article in NewScientist ~ Physics Math Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy…… http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
[FairfieldLife] Steve Jobs' Last Words
Steve Jobs last words as he lay dying - reported by his sister:: Oh wow, Oh wow, Oh wow
Re: [FairfieldLife] Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Denise Evans wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. Nothing. You get a mantra which in ™ is the name of some Hindu god or goddess, and repeat it over and over during your 20-minute meditation, coming back to it whenever your mind strays, which is often, because it's usually pretty boring doing this. It's supposed to provide what TMers call deep rest. This is deeper than your average garden-variety rest, because they say so and what more proof do you need? Seriously, there have been some studies but most have to shown to have been fixed in some way. If you want a list of the ™ mantras, they're available somewhere on the Web. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Because they could make more $$ in the old days by keeping it secret, silly. Of course you can learn it from a book. Only self-important pompous fools would try to convince you you needed to shell out a huge amount of $$ to learn a secret word. Don't believe 'em, Denise. Or is it? Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. Plenty of people have breached the secret, and I'm pretty sure you can find it on the Web. Pick whichever mantra appeals to you, sit down and repeat it for 20 minutes, coming back as necessary, and voila. You're a meditator. Sal To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Nablusoss,could you help with an offer to help? You're an old TM teacher? Turqb is an ex-patriot living in Europe. Like several of us here, you be an old TM patriot. You're both living in Europe. You'd be available to check Turqb's meditation? Could you help bring him in out of the cold? That would be real nice. -Buck Agreed, that would be nice. But you see, after all those years with white beer, LSD, pot and depletion of vital fluids etc.etc that old dog has probably forgotten his mantra. I'm afraid he's a lost case :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: Pick whichever mantra appeals to you, sit down and repeat it for 20 minutes, coming back as necessary, and voila. You're a meditator. ...with a serious headache, all for free !
Re: [FairfieldLife] Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Denise Evans wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. Nothing. You get a mantra which in ™ is the name of some Hindu god or goddess, and repeat it over and over during your 20-minute meditation, coming back to it whenever your mind strays, which is often, because it's usually pretty boring doing this. It's supposed to provide what TMers call deep rest. This is deeper than your average garden-variety rest, because they say so and what more proof do you need? Seriously, there have been some studies but most have to shown to have been fixed in some way. If you want a list of the ™ mantras, they're available somewhere on the Web. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Because they could make more $$ in the old days by keeping it secret, silly. Of course you can learn it from a book. Only self-important pompous fools would try to convince you you needed to shell out a huge amount of $$ to learn a secret word. Don't believe 'em, Denise. Or is it? Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. Plenty of people have breached the secret, and I'm pretty sure you can find it on the Web. Pick whichever mantra appeals to you, sit down and repeat it for 20 minutes, coming back as necessary, and voila. You're a meditator. And here you go: http://bit.ly/lXMA3o Sal To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
Its Salarishi! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Denise Evans wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. Nothing. You get a mantra which in is the name of some Hindu god or goddess, and repeat it over and over during your 20-minute meditation, coming back to it whenever your mind strays, which is often, because it's usually pretty boring doing this. It's supposed to provide what TMers call deep rest. This is deeper than your average garden-variety rest, because they say so and what more proof do you need? Seriously, there have been some studies but most have to shown to have been fixed in some way. If you want a list of the mantras, they're available somewhere on the Web. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Because they could make more $$ in the old days by keeping it secret, silly. Of course you can learn it from a book. Only self-important pompous fools would try to convince you you needed to shell out a huge amount of $$ to learn a secret word. Don't believe 'em, Denise. Or is it? Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. Plenty of people have breached the secret, and I'm pretty sure you can find it on the Web. Pick whichever mantra appeals to you, sit down and repeat it for 20 minutes, coming back as necessary, and voila. You're a meditator. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Siddha Medicine , Navapashanam Healing
On Oct 31, 2011, at 5:11 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: Its Salarishi! Not bad, Jim. Kinda has a nice ring to it. Why do I all of a sudden have the urge to start holding million $$ courses and wearing a crown? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 31, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Denise Evans wrote: I still fail to understand what is it about TM that is so special that it cannot be divulged without payment. Nothing. You get a mantra which in ™ is the name of some Hindu god or goddess, and repeat it over and over during your 20-minute meditation, coming back to it whenever your mind strays, which is often, because it's usually pretty boring doing this. It's supposed to provide what TMers call deep rest. This is deeper than your average garden-variety rest, because they say so and what more proof do you need? Seriously, there have been some studies but most have to shown to have been fixed in some way. If you want a list of the ™ mantras, they're available somewhere on the Web. If the TMO is trying to change the world and they are truly sincere in this, why is it all a big secret? Why is the technique so secret? Why isn't it in a book? Because they could make more $$ in the old days by keeping it secret, silly. Of course you can learn it from a book. Only self-important pompous fools would try to convince you you needed to shell out a huge amount of $$ to learn a secret word. Don't believe 'em, Denise. Or is it? Why has no one breached the secrecy? Who the fuck are all of you super secret special meditators that you are keeping this big elephant in the living room a secret? Protecting your investment? How self-centered is this? Why wouldn't the TMO release the secret, or for that matter, anyone who has the secret, and really test the hypothesis that they can change the world? It reeks of BS. Plenty of people have breached the secret, and I'm pretty sure you can find it on the Web. Pick whichever mantra appeals to you, sit down and repeat it for 20 minutes, coming back as necessary, and voila. You're a meditator. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
Nabby, you know you could offer this to the Turq. There are plenty of TM Teachers (and most of your rock star heroes) who have had their share of the same substances you say the Turq has gulped into his body. He is not a lone wolf. Where is the creative yogi in you? What about some of the children who are learning TM is the schools, whose mom's may have taken crack or crystal or a cocktail of anti-depressants? Go forth and seek the Turq, Nabby. It is your duty. Do not let the master's down. Drink the blood of the Christ. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Nablusoss,could you help with an offer to help? You're an old TM teacher? Turqb is an ex-patriot living in Europe. Like several of us here, you be an old TM patriot. You're both living in Europe. You'd be available to check Turqb's meditation? Could you help bring him in out of the cold? That would be real nice. -Buck Agreed, that would be nice. But you see, after all those years with white beer, LSD, pot and depletion of vital fluids etc.etc that old dog has probably forgotten his mantra. I'm afraid he's a lost case :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs' Last Words
It sounds like he might have been heavily sedated by the doctors in his last hours of life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Steve Jobs last words as he lay dying - reported by his sister:: Oh wow, Oh wow, Oh wow
