[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man! (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message). Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine women and try to objectify them as performing according to the strict limits of his closed little belief system. Here's an interesting article on the different ways people objectify those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed. :-) The science of objectification http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/the_science_of_objectification/singleto\ nThe common wisdom is that naked women are seen as objects, but new research says it's more complicated than thatWhen Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a demure, long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made sure to detail exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually harassed by Herman Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well know that women are judged by what, and how little, they wear. A new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why our perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's a question at the heart of contentious debates about everything from objectification in pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically it's been assumed that this is something that happens when men perceive women the infamous male gaze and that it involves, as one of the study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the University of Maryland, put it, the wholesale stripping away of mind (in other words, viewing someone as a mindless sex object). This study challenges all of those ideas, he told me by phone. As a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men aren't the only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor is it unexpected that we perceive a person in their birthday suit as having less agency than, say, someone in a business suit. More intriguing, though, is that the data suggests that despite all that, our perception of naked people doesn't involve the aforementioned wholesale stripping of mind. Nakedness does change how we perceive a person, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive, vulnerable and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains, People perceive minds along two dimensions and not along one. So instead of seeing them as an object versus a person, we see them as two kinds of people. An agent and an experiencer. The study, More Than a Body: Mind Perception and the Nature of Objectification, is actually composed of several smaller studies, some of which asked participants to come to conclusions about naked and clothed porn stars pictured in photographs. In one exercise, images were featured from the book XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits, which contrasts high-quality portraits of stars like Jenna Jameson wearing regular street clothes with images of the same performers standing stark naked but, importantly, without any come-hither posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate male and female models in photographs showing just their face, or their face and upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when the focus is on a person's body and not his or her face. The study itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as beings who are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may be even more capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and passions. This may not be the most humanizing view, but the authors note that being perceived as such can actually be a good thing in certain situations like when you're complaining to your doctor about a pain. In that case, it might be beneficial to be seen as a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds, If you're with your partner then you might want to think of them as a body, he says. If you want to make love, you want to be thinking about their experience and not, like, `Oh, are we planning on submitting these mortgage payments on time?' It's useful for our perceptions of people to change, depending on the context. Sometimes the outcome is positive, sometimes it's negative, but Gray argues, Psychological phenomena aren't intrinsically good or bad. It's important to note that although the research positions itself in part as a response to debates over objectification and pornography, it didn't look at actual X-rated movies or anything of the sort even the naked
[FairfieldLife] MERU GLOBAL WINTER ASSEMBLY
[Maharishi Global Family Chat Banner] Web version https://www.mgcwp.org/ico/emailing/2011-12-27_Winter_Assembly/2011_12_2\ 7_Winter_Assembly_2011.html | PDF Download https://www.mgcwp.org/ico/emailing/2011-12-27_Winter_Assembly/December_\ 2011_Assembly.pdf Celebrating Maharishi's Supreme Blessings to Mankind Welcome to the Global Winter Assembly and Celebration of 12 January 2012 with Maharishi's Worldwide Movement Family in MERU, Holland Celebrating Knowledge: 27 - 31 December 2011 Celebrating Silence: 1 - 9 January 2012 Celebrating Dynamism: 8 - 15 January 2012 The Rajas, Raj Rajeshwaris, and Ministers of the Global Country of World Peace warmly invite all Governors, Sidhas, and Meditators from all countries to participate in the Global Winter Assembly at MERU. It will be a celebration of the supreme blessings of Total Knowledge that we have received from Maharishi, from Guru Dev, and from the eternal tradition of Vedic Masters. Daily Highlights * Group ProgrammeDeepen your inner experience of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme by joining your friends in extended group programme in the peaceful and serene environment of MERU. The experience of deep rest over many days results in a profound reduction of accumulated stress and tension, providing a foundation for the unfoldment of higher states of consciousness, inner happiness, and support of Nature in all aspects of daily life. * Daily Enlightening Video Lectures by Maharishi at Maharishi's Peace Palace in MERU * Recitations by the Maharishi Vedic PanditsEnlivening the Impulses of Natural Law Enliven the impulses of Creative Intelligence that reside in your own self-referral awareness by enjoying daily recitations performed by Maharishi Vedic Pandits in Maharishi's Peace Palace in MERU. [Vedic Pandits] [Celebrating Knowledge] 1. The Individual Is Cosmic `Here is the first and final disclosure of knowledge that presents every human being as the embodiment of the total creative process in Nature and renders human life as a field of all possibilities.' Maharishi [Vedic Man] A new course that sparked tremendous interest when introduced at MUM this summer will be offered at this assembly by Drs. Alarik Cynthia Arenander. This course brings to our awareness an invaluable depth of Vedic Knowledge that Maharishi had uncovered. The course utilises the beautiful electronic display that Maharishi designed with the scientists to offer practical application to Maharaja's discovery that human physiology is the expression of Veda and Vedic Literatureshowing that the individual is cosmic. The course provides knowledge and experience to align yourself with Total Natural Law, the Constitution of Universe. Innocently hearing the impulses of Veda while at the same time seeing the corresponding part of the physiology light up on the beautiful electronic display of Veda and Human Physiology helps align the individual expression of intelligence with Cosmic Intelligence. 2. Maharishi Vedic Astrology Knowledge Series Gaining Mastery Over Natural Law through the Maharishi Jyotish and Maharishi Yagya Programmes `Maharishi Jyotish and Maharishi Yagyas are for the development of enlightenmentlife free from dependence on surroundings and circumstances, and mastery over one's own destiny.' Maharishi The Vedic disciplines of Maharishi Jyotish and Maharishi Yagya are the science and technology of prediction and transformation and provide the intellectual and experiential means to gain integration of mind, body, and environment; avert problems from arising; and promote good fortune in life. This course features historic lectures by Maharishi, animations and lectures by Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and other leaders of the Global Country of World Peace to give insight into the extraordinary contributions Maharishi Jyotish and Yagya can make to individual and societylife in enlightenment, self-sufficiency, and all possibilities. Discover how the movements of the sun, moon, planets, and stars influence our brain, behaviour, and environment, and how this cosmic relationship can be managed for maximum success, health, and happiness. Learn the mechanics of how large groups of Maharishi Vedic Pandits apply the technologies of Yoga and Yagya to generate nourishing waves of peacepowerful enough to transform the trends of time for our world family. Hundreds of course participants from more than 60 nations have enjoyed the profound and practical knowledge contained in the online version of this course. Now dive deeply into these fascinating disciplines of Maharishi Vedic Science in the heavenly atmosphere of coherence and Total Knowledge that Maharishi created at MERU and begin to enjoy a brighter future today! [Solar System] [Celebrating Silence] * January 1 7: Retreat into blissful silence in deep self-referral experience of long Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme in large groups. * Special
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can an Enlightened Person Have Lust?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Use your common sense. Watch this clip and weep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocbZhRQS9I If you are not yourself free how can you convincingly talk about freedom ?
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote: The reason is that in the years between then and now I've had many more experiences, some of which put the earlier experiences in the shade and raised the bar on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about. Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience changes everything. What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many on this forum have gone mental, in that they seem to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had real substance, or as if they had any real existence at all *outside* their heads. That's the main reason I can no longer identify with many of the things discussed here enough to participate in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of the toy box and play with them for a while, just for their entertainment value. When you get bored with one toy, you take out another and play with it for a while. So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend* those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something they call truth, 2) that anyone who believes something different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters. I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the fun of trying them on and rapping from that POV for a while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things without any substance that flit across the surface of my mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh... entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it. Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of truth. I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That IMO is the content of all scriptures, revealed writings, dharma talks, philosophy, et al. I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue and defend them, or worse, attempt to convince others that they are something approaching truth. As a result, I find it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's truth, my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how* attached they are to the mentation toy. But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow defend what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as the kinds of people who might still be listening to their old Monkees records, and still believing them not only original (which they never were), or originated by actual musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it all any more. What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here with people who seem to function more like myself, and use ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw- ing out ideas like real musicians throw out a good melody line, and then riff on it, just for the fun of it. But those conversations have become few and far between, and there are possibly not enough of them to warrant my continued participation. All I can say is that if becoming convinced of the truth of one's ideas and beliefs has the effect of making people so *angry* when those ideas and beliefs are challenged or poked fun at, then I'm not convinced it's a good thing. Feels more like fundamentalism and ego-enhancement to me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Spoiled mantras H.H. Jagadguru Swami Swaroopananda, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math interviewed by David Sieveking Translator: When he did the TM course of Mahesh Yogi he was asked to pay $2500. He was then seated in front of Gurudev's photo and given a mantra. He wishes to know Shankaracharyaji's thoughts on this... Tell him your mantra... David: Shring. Translator: Shring? David: Shring...they say it is the meaningless word but I found out that it invokes... Translator: How do you spell it? David: I'll write it for you... 2nd translator: He has also been told that the mantra has no meaning and that he simply has to recite it [mentally]. HH Swarupananda: This is not a mantra. Had it been Shrim i.e. S-H-R-I- M, then it would have been a mantra. Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me. IMO, the basic element of that category of biija mantras seems to be 'agni' read backwards: 'inga'. If the first/final a-sound is only implied, like in 'agni' (agniH/agnim/agninaa, etc) for some sandhi positions,([a]gni/ing[a]), it might make that basic element even more effective?? :o Translator: He was given this mantra in front of Gurudev`s photo. So he wants to know whether this has been the tradition from long time ago? HH Swarupananda: Mahesh Yogi was not a brahnman and hence did not have the right to give anybody any mantra's hence he would place the Gurudev's picture so as to symbolise that the mantra was being given through Gurudev. The tradition is such that the mantra is a very private and secretive conversation between a Guru and a disciple. It is said that when it goes in 6 ears the mantra's powers are lost...it has to remain in between the two ears of the Guru and the two ears of the Shishya or disciple any other person is not to be party to it. 2nd translator: First of all this mantra was not a mantra. The procedure for giving it was a guru can give it to the shishya but as Maharishi was not a brahman maybe he was keeping a picture of Gurudev to give the mantra...but according to tradition it has to be between the 2 ears of yours and the two ears of Guru, if it goes to six ears [i.e. via a TM teacher] then its a spoiled mantra. Jai Guru Dev
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Spoiled mantras H.H. Jagadguru Swami Swaroopananda, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math interviewed by David Sieveking Translator: When he did the TM course of Mahesh Yogi he was asked to pay $2500. He was then seated in front of Gurudev's photo and given a mantra. He wishes to know Shankaracharyaji's thoughts on this... Tell him your mantra... David: Shring. Translator: Shring? David: Shring...they say it is the meaningless word but I found out that it invokes... Translator: How do you spell it? David: I'll write it for you... 2nd translator: He has also been told that the mantra has no meaning and that he simply has to recite it [mentally]. HH Swarupananda: This is not a mantra. Had it been Shrim i.e. S-H-R-I- M, then it would have been a mantra. Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me. IMO, the basic element of that category of biija mantras seems to be 'agni' read backwards: 'inga'. If the first/final a-sound is only implied, like in 'agni' (agniH/agnim/agninaa, etc) for some sandhi positions,([a]gni/ing[a]), it might make that basic element even more effective?? :o Whoa! The form '´gni' + any inflectional suffix (´gnim, ´gniH, etc.) seems to be quite rare in the Rk. The first one we found was in I 112, 1: ILe dyAvApR^ithivI pUrvachittaye.agniM [ = puurvacittaye 'gniM] gharmaM suruchaM yAmanniShTaye | Griffith's translation: 1 To give first thought to them, I worship Heaven and Earth, and Agni, [ = I do TM using a mantra derived from 'agni'??] fair bright glow, ***to hasten their approach***. (That is, the approach of Heaven on Earth? ;-) ) In this case the elision of the 'a' in 'agnim' is due to the final e-sound in 'puurvacittaye', to avoid the (for Sanskrit) awkward sequence 'e[h] + a[h]'.
[FairfieldLife] Humanized phone?
http://aani.nokia.fi/2011/11/09/nokia-humanform-jotain-aivan-uskomatonta/ jotain aivan uskomantonta = something totally incredible
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humanized phone?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: http://aani.nokia.fi/2011/11/09/nokia-humanform-jotain-aivan-uskomatonta/ jotain aivan uskomantonta = something totally incredible Oops: uskomatonta
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 5:43 AM, cardemaister wrote: Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me. IMO, the basic element of that category of biija mantras seems to be 'agni' read backwards: 'inga'. If the first/final a-sound is only implied, like in 'agni' (agniH/agnim/agninaa, etc) for some sandhi positions,([a]gni/ing[a]), it might make that basic element even more effective?? :o http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/164856 And meaning is vitally important, the idea of meaningless sounds is quite simply, a lie. One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra. It's first verse quotes Shiva, directly communicating to his counterpart, Parameshsvari: Sri Shiva said: Listen Oh Parameshsvari! Now I shall describe to you the meaning of Mantras. In the absence of any knowledge of which no one can get siddhi, even with a million sadhanas. Pretty clear, huh! What makes it so special is the clarity with which it describes the TM mantras. For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi, Repha (the guttural whirring of the R-sound) indicates dAna (giving, imparting, paying back); ee (I) indicates Tushti, satisfaction and contentment, the Nada indicates Para, the transcendent--that which is beyond; and the Bindu indicates the destroyer of discomforts and uneasiness. Thus shreeng is the Bija or Seed for the worship of Lakshmi. -The mantrarthabhidanam
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man !
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
Buck, has it ever occurred to you that all of this verbiage is just a way of saying, We don't agree with the way you're running the Self Importance Club. We're just as self-important as you are, whether we 'see saints' or not. You should let us back in to the club and treat us as your equals so that we can all be equally self-important together. I mean, the very *concept* of being banned from the domes means nothing except to a handful of people hanging on to the past in Fairfield, Iowa. Could you even *begin* to explain to someone who has never felt it necessary to head lemming-like to some gaudy dome structure twice a day the way the Eloi did in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine WHY they'd ever want to do that? They missed all of the decades of indoctrination that you still carry around, and regard as truth. The only thing you're questioning are the footnotes to the thing you consider truth, the who is allowed to be a lemming and who is not by-laws. You're still buying into the idea that a bunch of people bouncing on their butts on foam actually DOES something. Some of us don't buy that. Many long-term TMers on this forum don't buy that. They, based on objective evidence and their own subjective experiences, have come to the conclusion that the whole thing is and always was a crock of manufactured bullshit, just another way for Maharishi to develop the herd mentality in his followers. If you're going to continue running this schtick here, could you consider devoting a post or two to WHY you think bouncing on your butt in the domes has *any effect whatsoever*? Please don't insult us with, Look at the science. The science is and always was bullshit, just a bunch of self-serving hokum thrown together by guru devotees too guru-whipped to tell the truth about their twice-a-day lemming run and why they do it: We do it because Maharishi told us to. What would you say to someone who doesn't believe that Maharishisez is a viable reason for doing ANYTHING, or to those who don't consider him an expert or an authority about much of anything. I am one such person, so you can aim your reply at me if you like. I think he was at best a well-intentioned charlatan and at worst a less-well-intentioned charlatan. I don't even think HE believed the horseshit he served up about the ME. So no appeal to that kind of argument can possibly work on me. Neither can any appeal to the science, any more than it's worked for thinking TMers like Dr. Pete or others here who see the science as the crock of shit it is. So how *would* you speak to someone who doesn't already buy into the Going to the domes is important meme that you do? Can you even conceive of doing so? I am suggesting that your whole schtick depends as much on being part of the herd and preaching to the already converted as Bevan's does, or as the Rajas' does. Try it. Try to give an introductory lecture to someone off the street, someone who has never been indoctrinated by the TMO about why they should consider bouncing on their butts for peace. My bet is that you can't do it, and that neither can anyone else here. The whole idea seems rational only to those who abandoned rationality decades ago. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. The Mayor's Dome numbers are interesting in that when you subtract out what is left behind the Pundit numbers and the 'small groups' like the tru-believers out in Vedic City are people in the domes who have survived years of Bevan's winnowing of fealty in his role as University President and emissary from Maharishi. A lot of the people left in the domes now meditate in a fear of test, accusation, and possibly being found out otherwise. For the Fairfield Dome meditation numbers to really survive the imminent retreat of the Pundits going home, the TM-Rajas now must rescind their anti-saint policy over the community. They have long destroyed the conscience of the community allowing it to rein. Yes, Change Comes from Within, however change here will come from within the TM-Rajas of necessity, if they have spine. -Buck in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Buck Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 7:55 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!! Up at Occupy the Domes in the Dome parking lot someone told me they will no longer go inside the dome to meditate because they visit saints. The Rajas have not changed that policy guideline so this person is not going to stop seeing the saints and hence is not going to go inside to meditate anymore. Is a long time TM-movement person. Has a valid dome badge and just stopped going. A friend of mine just got turned down for the same reason. She said to the course office guy that if they kicked out all the people who see saints, they'd have very few left. He admitted that was true, but said they have to boot the ones they know about. In other words, machine guns still firing at the movement's feet. Now, only if they really were saints, (doubtful). Getting kicked out of the dome for seeing saints?, funniest thing I've heard all year (how Bizarre).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
Evidently 'good' is not the same thing as effective as the Fairfield Dome numbers would testify. The numbers evidently stop with Bevan and the TM taliban rajas right now. It's a horse-race between the TM taliban conservatives and TM progressives. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man !
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Evidently 'good' is not the same thing as effective as the Fairfield Dome numbers would testify. The numbers evidently stop with Bevan and the TM taliban rajas right now. It's a horse-race between the TM taliban conservatives and TM progressives. -Buck in FF Why don't the so-called progressives follow the rules ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man !
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
lol You MZ lives in limbs, And looks through eyes not yours With lovely yearning? Keeps grace, (abiding in the sanctifying grace): that keeps all his goings graces? And denying now the instressness, the shaping force within creatures of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence that inscape was the essence of the postings at FFL landscape by quoting Hopkins then and there? Then and there the inscaped landscape markedly holding its most simple and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve below the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the inscape freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the eye and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the doing-be of turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his selving act of artistic will and thisness... now cannot come. Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D] Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis, Et ideo fulgemus cum illo, Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis. Hildegard von Bingen: Ordo Virtutem --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: The Barry Wright Syndrome Barry decides he has a point of view about somethinge.g. Puja is trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion? But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry expresseswe are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into posting at FFLis worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his negative emotionalityI suppose he is oblivious to thisand lets that drive his opinion. So that whattake this post herehappens is that someone has said: Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore. The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting herself? But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his insult, and then proceeds to actthrough what follows in his postas if this description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true. Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way I experience x. Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go from being predisposedcompelled somehowto see things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable to draw the same
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
I just can't help myself. If the typical form follows, we should be hearing shortly about Curtis and Marek as examples of high value posters. But really, isn't the manly thing to do just stop posting, without the long pre-amble, Okay guys, I putting everyone on notice. I may quit posting soon, followed by, Okay everyone, I really, really mean it this time. I may see fit to end my participation here. Jesus man, just do it or not do it, but quit the whining. It does not become you. Remember this. Now here's a man! Make to at least the brass balls near the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales Meant for someone else but not for me. But FFL was out to get me That's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. I couldn't leave the place if I tried. I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing, Seems the more I gave the less I got. What's the use in tryin'? All you get is pain. When I needed sunshine I got rain. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. a true FFL believer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Some are more worthy than others. :-) Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree. Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed is visible in Yahoo's Message View. And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't feel I owe anyone here anything. Not a response to something they post, and certainly not an argument or an impassioned defense of something I said. What I say is OPINION. What *they* say is OPINION. Neither of these OPINIONS has anything to do with truth or anything even remotely like it. I am content with merely stating my opinions and then watching the reactions to them. Some, it would seem, are not. They feel that they are owed some kind of argument or debate or discussion about their opinions, as if by offering up one that is contrary to theirs you have to become a captive audience to how they got their buttons pushed, or their attempts to push yours in response. Not my idea of discussion, sorry. I just spout opinions, and allow others to do the same. I hold no one on this forum's (and, for that matter, no one on this planet's) opinions to be better than my own. They are on exactly the same equal footing as what they are -- OPINIONS. Those who don't feel that their opinions ARE opinions are welcome to make a big to-do about that and act like drama queens. I shall graciously allow them to do so, while chuckling from behind my tree. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales Meant for someone else but not for me. But FFL was out to get me That's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. I couldn't leave the place if I tried. I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing, Seems the more I gave the less I got. What's the use in tryin'? All you get is pain. When I needed sunshine I got rain. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. a true FFL believer... See? Now THAT is a witty response. No call to argue, no implication that meru's POV (if he even has one) is true or truth, no putdowns or insults. Just taking the melody and riffing on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Yeah, you're a real (yawn) bad-ass, Barry. You are unable to have a discussion with anyone about anything, and now that this is widely recognized, you attempt to play the only card you have left, supposedly relishing the role of troll, button-pusher, and misanthrope. Did you dress up as Freddy Lenz for Halloween too? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Robin, you have quite a talent for removing the mask from slippery characters. Kudos! Judy has calling Barry out for the same behavior for years and he still doesn't get it. Never will. A zebra doesn't change its stripes. [http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Orange-jelly-Nailed-it.jpg] http://youtu.be/1pAcfJQgxjE http://youtu.be/1pAcfJQgxjE --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: The Barry Wright Syndrome Barry decides he has a point of view about somethinge.g. Puja is trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion? But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry expresseswe are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into posting at FFLis worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his negative emotionalityI suppose he is oblivious to thisand lets that drive his opinion. So that whattake this post herehappens is that someone has said: Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore. The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: Is my mother really that unattractive, and is she prostituting herself? But Barry never lays out his case against the woman. He merely repeats his insult, and then proceeds to actthrough what follows in his postas if this description of the person does not need explanation or defence; Barry Wright has said it; that is enough to make it true. Now if Barry would assert something is the case; and then follow it out as so we could understand how Barry became convinced in himself that what he is asserting is true, we would be in a position to assess the merits of his point of view. But as it is, Barry compulsively, reflexively ignores even the theoretical possibility that there is data contradictory to his point of view; he merely ignores the very idea of another, competing point of view. Barry is thus selectively biased in this sense: Barry decides it serves his psychological needs to believe a certain thing is one way; or rather he has a strong emotional need to have the world appear a certain way to him. If he can pretend that it does seem this way, then this enables him to project onto the world what is most convenient for the perpetuation of his own undisciplined predilections. Barry never has got beyond the simple act of: 1. I experience x to be a certain way 2. I will insist that x must be the way I experience x. Barry doesn't realize one basic thing about human beings: the mere fact that you would like things to be seen in a way which conforms to your need for them to be that way, cannot replace the work and effort required to go from being predisposedcompelled somehowto see things a particular way, to deciding well, they must be that way. We, on the other hand, have to see how it is reasonable to draw the same conclusions as Barry has. But he deprives us of this opportunity, and makes his own subjective consciousness the only arbiter of the matter: we either trust him on this, or else we are unable to enter into the context within which he has come to believe what he says is the case. If only Barry Wright would contemplate: I despise anyone on FFL who tries to argue on behalf of a point of view which is at odds with my own point of view. Therefore I am just going to attack that point of view as if it is stupid and indefensiblebut I will never explain why this is so. I will just go on repeating my own judgment, without ever attempting to persuade, convince, much less convert, others to my point of view. Is this not clearly
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
So the time may be approaching in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here interesting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. Really?? We have heard this swan song from you before, and it hasn't amounted to much, but I personally would find it awesome if you would stop with your overall mood of whining, and go away for awhile.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote: The reason is that in the years between then and now I've had many more experiences, some of which put the earlier experiences in the shade and raised the bar on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about. Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience changes everything. What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many on this forum have gone mental, in that they seem to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had real substance, or as if they had any real existence at all *outside* their heads. That's the main reason I can no longer identify with many of the things discussed here enough to participate in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of the toy box and play with them for a while, just for their entertainment value. When you get bored with one toy, you take out another and play with it for a while. So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend* those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something they call truth, 2) that anyone who believes something different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters. I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the fun of trying them on and rapping from that POV for a while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things without any substance that flit across the surface of my mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh... entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it. Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of truth. I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That IMO is the content of all scriptures, revealed writings, dharma talks, philosophy, et al. I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue and defend them, or worse, attempt to convince others that they are something approaching truth. As a result, I find it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's truth, my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how* attached they are to the mentation toy. But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow defend what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as the kinds of people who might still be listening to their old Monkees records, and still believing them not only original (which they never were), or originated by actual musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it all any more. What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here with people who seem to function more like myself, and use ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw- ing out ideas like real musicians throw out a good melody line, and then riff on it, just for the fun of it. But
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me... Vaj: One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra... So, you believe in 'Buddhas'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:10 AM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me... Vaj: One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra... So, you believe in 'Buddhas'. I've met a few.
[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)
IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust itself... turquoiseb: Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far the most sexually repressed and hung up person here... So, you're opposed to normal sexual relations with a wife? The left-handed tantric's main goal, which is to have sexual relations with their mother, Sri Lakshmi, short of that, sex with a sixteen year old. Did I get that right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra Sort of like with Zen Master Rama and that girl he gave the sleeping pills to up in Westchester? Thanks for all your help! Lenz, 48, and a female companion, who was not identified, tried to kill themselves April 11 by taking a large amount of Valium, Gierasch said. They then went out on a dock at the rear of his $2 million home, where Lenz fell into the water. His body was found two days later with a dog collar around his neck. The Three Village Herald reports that 33-year-old Lacey Brinn, who was found at Lenz's mansion, said Lenz had taken 150 tablets of the sedative and she had taken 50... - The Three Village Herald, April 16
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bill Clinton's Ideas to Fix US Economy
JohnJr: A US president is supposed to lead the people to the American dream... Our entitlement system, meanwhile, is designed to redistribute wealth. But this redistribution doesn't go from the idle rich to the working poor; it goes from young to old, working-age savings to retiree consumption, middle-class parents to empty-nest seniors. . . 'What Tax Dollars Can't Buy' New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/d75zu2l
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra... So, you believe in 'Buddhas'. Vaj: I've met a few. How many 'Dakinis' do you know? 'Dakini Teachings' By Padmasambhava North Atlantic Books, 2004
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
Why don't the so-called progressives follow the rules ? Well, the anti-saint policy of the TM-Rajas in reality is a terrible dissonance here while, the children at Maharishi School are taught the behavioral rasayana, 'Be with wise people'. Guru Dev taught people to sit with Saints, Mahatmas and the Wise. Maharishi told a lot of people all along to keep the company of the Saints and holy people. Left now with the TM-Rajas assailing the meditating community with their anti-saint policy guidelines, is it no wonder the Fairfield dome numbers are in turmoil. There is no conscience in the TM-Raja position. They need to abandon it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Evidently 'good' is not the same thing as effective as the Fairfield Dome numbers would testify. The numbers evidently stop with Bevan and the TM taliban rajas right now. It's a horse-race between the TM taliban conservatives and TM progressives. -Buck in FF Why don't the so-called progressives follow the rules ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man !
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
whynotnow7: Yeah, you're a real (yawn) bad-ass, Barry. You are unable to have a discussion with anyone about anything, and now that this is widely recognized, you attempt to play the only card you have left, supposedly relishing the role of troll, button-pusher, and misanthrope... The acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and potentially psychotic. However, OCD sufferers generally recognize their obsessions and compulsions as irrational, and may become further distressed by this realization... 'Obsessive-compulsive disorder' http://tinyurl.com/r37s7o
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Some are more worthy than others. :-) Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree. Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed is visible in Yahoo's Message View. Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to remove. You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking KleenexYou wimps. I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I pressed your button once more! Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't feel I owe anyone here anything. Not a response to something they post, and certainly not an argument or an impassioned defense of something I said. Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking. Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myselfnot good for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the time]and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream memories. But your ice-cream makeryour second onedidn't he choke to death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest opinion. You aren't, are youmerely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can tellscientists will back this up with their opinionsheliocentric. Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out your case? Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed their buttons? If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then why not join in the fun and defend yourself against counter-opining? You seem to take very seriously everything anyone says here contra your own opinions, because you are silent and unresponsive. This decision *never ever to rebut those who disagree with you*, that is decision you make at the level of opinion? As in: it is my opinion that no matter what Robin or anyone's else says, I should not respond? But if *that* is but an opinion, Barry, then perhaps it is a mistaken opinion. Perhaps your refusal to enter into the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:57 AM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra... So, you believe in 'Buddhas'. Vaj: I've met a few. How many 'Dakinis' do you know? Enough.
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
The reason is that in the years between then and now I've had many more experiences, some of which put the earlier experiences in the shade and raised the bar on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about. Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience changes everything. turquoiseb: That's the main reason I can no longer identify with many of the things discussed here enough to participate in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of the toy box and play with them for a while, just for their entertainment value. When you get bored with one toy, you take out another and play with it for a while. So, you've never been married. But, doesn't hanging out at bars and cafes get boring after forty years? Maybe you should just face reality and get a job so you can support a family. It's a little late, you're what over 50, but anything is possible. You're not even a homeowner, right? My advice to you is to get over the MMY and Rama, and just move on with your life. Are you thinking you can hide from life forever? You're a little old to be still living in a commune in downtown Amsterdam, incessantly posting about your old gurus! snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra... So, you believe in 'Buddhas'. Vaj: I've met a few. How many 'Dakinis' do you know? Vaj: Enough. Did you ever meet up with the Yeshe Tsogyel, concubine of Guru Padmasambhava? 'Sky Dancer' The Secret Life of the Lady Yeshe Tsogyel by Stag-am Nus-ldan-rdo-rje Snow Lion, 1996
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
On Nov 10, 2011, at 8:06 AM, merudanda wrote: I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales Meant for someone else but not for me. But FFL was out to get me That's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. I couldn't leave the place if I tried. I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing, Seems the more I gave the less I got. What's the use in tryin'? All you get is pain. When I needed sunshine I got rain. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. Excellent! Sal
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 6:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Funny, after all this chat yesterday about the Monkees, I searched to see if anything new had happened with my 60's Seattle group. To my surprise one of our recordings wound up on a soundtrack of an Adam Sandler movie Strange Wilderness. I put the Bluray in my NF queue to check it out. On 11/10/2011 06:06 AM, merudanda wrote: Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales Meant for someone else but not for me. But FFL was out to get me That's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. I couldn't leave the place if I tried. I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing, Seems the more I gave the less I got. What's the use in tryin'? All you get is pain. When I needed sunshine I got rain. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. a true FFL believer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoisebno_reply@... wrote: Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. I would have paid good money to see that. TMO's biggest playground bully gets to kiss the pavement in public. One wonders whether he ever displayed any change in behavior afterwards, or whether he brushed it off as just unstressing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Mayor's Dome Numbers
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. Gee, I wonder why Bevan never reported that to the cops? Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
On 11/10/2011 01:53 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vajvajradhatu@... wrote: On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote: The reason is that in the years between then and now I've had many more experiences, some of which put the earlier experiences in the shade and raised the bar on my internal Woo Scale. What I used to consider a 9 I now consider a 4. I'm sure you get what I'm talking about. Oh yes, definitely. It was a long time before I was able to wrap my head around the fact that TM-style phenomenon were largely mental plane phenomenon. The light mental bliss I thought was so special, was just a mere shadow; the kundalini, mere prana-kundalini and the visions mental mirages. The perspective of time and experience changes everything. What's amazing to me lately is how profoundly many on this forum have gone mental, in that they seem to live almost entirely in their heads. They get so attached to their ideas and beliefs, and seek to argue them and defend these ideas and beliefs as if they had real substance, or as if they had any real existence at all *outside* their heads. That's the main reason I can no longer identify with many of the things discussed here enough to participate in such discussions. I'm really not like that. To me ideas and beliefs are like toys. You take them out of the toy box and play with them for a while, just for their entertainment value. When you get bored with one toy, you take out another and play with it for a while. So I'm finding it increasingly difficult to *comprehend* those who are so attached to their own ideas and beliefs as to feel that 1) they are synonymous with something they call truth, 2) that anyone who believes something different than they do is obligated to debate these ideas and beliefs with them, and 3) that ANY of this matters. I don't feel any of that. I just spout opinions, for the fun of trying them on and rapping from that POV for a while. When the rap is done, often so are the ideas or beliefs. To me they really ARE nothing but toys, things without any substance that flit across the surface of my mind from time to time. They're either entertaining AS they flit by, or they aren't. If the former, I rap about them for a while; if the latter, I click Next and look for some idea that might be entertaining enough to...uh... entertain for long enough to dash off a post about it. Then again, I don't believe in even the concept of truth. I honestly don't believe that such a thing has ever existed in the entire history of planet Earth, or ever will. All that ever HAS existed were humans spouting opinion. That IMO is the content of all scriptures, revealed writings, dharma talks, philosophy, et al. I find it difficult to even *comprehend* people so attached to the things they believe that they feel the need to argue and defend them, or worse, attempt to convince others that they are something approaching truth. As a result, I find it almost impossible to take such people seriously. When someone trots out a mentation toy here and claims that it's truth, my first impulse is to laugh at them as the overly serious dweebs they are. My second impulse in the past has been to write something provocative, to see exactly *how* attached they are to the mentation toy. But that's starting to wear on me. The people who feel that others are obligated *to* argue with them, or to somehow defend what is NOTHING BUT OPINION, ON ALL SIDES just are not gonna lighten up. So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. Some seem to have no problem with this. They strike me as the kinds of people who might still be listening to their old Monkees records, and still believing them not only original (which they never were), or originated by actual musicians (which the Monkees themselves never were). I just can't get off on the same-old-same-old-ness of it all any more. What I DO like are the occasional interactions I have here with people who seem to function more like myself, and use ideas as playthings. We have fun from time to time throw- ing out ideas like real musicians throw out a good melody line, and then riff on it, just for the fun of it. But those conversations have become few and far between, and there are possibly not enough of them to warrant my continued participation. All I can say is that if becoming convinced of the truth of one's ideas and beliefs has the effect of making people so *angry* when those ideas and beliefs are challenged or poked fun at, then I'm not convinced it's a good thing. Feels more like fundamentalism and ego-enhancement to me. Okay, this is your Amy riff of the day. But I will agree it is interesting that people here live in the
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
Enjoyable, again MZ. It is by proving through your posts that you have a clear mind and heart that I am able to enjoy your dialogues immensely, like watching an intricate jigsaw puzzle being assembled that at the end, despite the large number of pieces, forms a coherent whole, without a trace of self aggrandizement or tinge of nastiness. Well done! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Some are more worthy than others. :-) Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree. Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed is visible in Yahoo's Message View. Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to remove. You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking KleenexYou wimps. I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I pressed your button once more! Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't feel I owe anyone here anything. Not a response to something they post, and certainly not an argument or an impassioned defense of something I said. Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking. Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myselfnot good for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the time]and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream memories. But your ice-cream makeryour second onedidn't he choke to death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest opinion. You aren't, are youmerely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can tellscientists will back this up with their opinionsheliocentric. Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out your case? Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed their buttons? If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then why not join in
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of turquoiseb Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:49 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@... wrote: On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. I would have paid good money to see that. TMO's biggest playground bully gets to kiss the pavement in public. One wonders whether he ever displayed any change in behavior afterwards, or whether he brushed it off as just unstressing. Reportedly, after the incident he just left the room, and there were no known consequences for his attacker.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. Gee, I wonder why Bevan never reported that to the cops? Sal That's what I was hoping to see in David Wants To Make A Movie, instead of the mopey, no surprises, overly long piece it turned out to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Barry's Baritric-I has opined here many times that everything that can be said is just opinion ... i.e. there is not nor can there be such a thing as truth. Like writing there is no such thing as writing or declaring it is absolutely true that only relative truth exists, Barry continues to troll forward on FFL with his multiple absurdities. As you have pointed out, Barry is so wrapped in his own subjectivity that the world seems to be his great canvas. This is the very definition of Shankara's jagan mithya (the world is only appearance) or Plato's chained cave-dwelling prisoners. Doxa (opinion) represents his desperate wish to affirm his rule over his own world. Because he hates authority, he hates quotes that describe a reality he does not care to share. He probably even believes that the distance between the Earth and Moon changes according to whether he agrees or disagrees with someone about its correct measure. That is why I have included the quote below. Let him have his world. It will eat him soon enough and then later, like a leaf in the wind, he will be engulfed in this one. Lucifer: Not to admit that which exceeds us, and not to wish to exceed oneself: that is in fact the whole program of psychologism, and it is the very definition of Lucifer. The opposite or primordial and normative attitude is: not to think except in reference to that which exceeds us, and to live but for the sake of exceeding oneself; to seek greatness where this is to be found, and not on the plane of the individual and his rebellious pettiness. In order to rejoin true greatness, man must first of all agree to pay the debt of his own pettiness by remaining small on the plane where he cannot help being small; the sense of objective reality, on the one hand, and of the absolute, on the other, does not go without a certain abnegation, and it is this abnegation in fact which allows us to be fully faithful to our human vocation. from Logic and Transcendence, The Contradiction of Relativism by Frithjof Schuon --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: The Barry Wright Syndrome Barry decides he has a point of view about somethinge.g. Puja is trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Mayor's Dome Numbers
On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:11 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. Gee, I wonder why Bevan never reported that to the cops? BTW, Rick, my point in saying that was not to cast any doubts on your story's veracity, which IMO sounds totally credible. Makes you wonder how much else goes on over there that never gets reported, and for good reason I'm sure, as it would undoubtedly open up a huge box of worms I'm sure the worms in crowns :) would much rather leave closed. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
Thank you for prompting me to look at this again The Word of God shines bright in human form, And thus we shine with him, Building up the limbs of his beautiful body. (Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis, Et ideo fulgemus cum illo, Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis) Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces; Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is Chrístfor Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his To the Father through the features of men's faces. That final metaphor in the poem is an intensive one introducing both the metaphor of 'play' (seems the verb 'plays' here is intransitive ) in something, as well as the further one of doing so under the approving eyes of a father (play 'to like in a rap, in music-' interestingly not 'for' the Father ) The earlier version of the last two lines in Hopkins's poem was : Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his With lovely yearning Using the earlier imagery (Lives in limbs, and looks through eyes not his With lovely yearning ), however, can help us towards the basic idea in Hopkins's poem - that the presence of Hopkins's Christ may be found in play in other human beings, and so guided towards the Father. ... just a playful thoughtforgive me only the thought of something bright and precise, that must have somehow zigzagging back to the sky, its image too soon blurred to an idea after you open your prayerful hands to see what you have caught, that has been tickling your palms with wings or feeler reading your postings The Large Family 1963 Rene Magritte --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: lol You MZ lives in limbs, And looks through eyes not yours With lovely yearning? Keeps grace, (abiding in the sanctifying grace): that keeps all his goings graces? And denying now the instressness, the shaping force within creatures of nature and art at FFL, in contradiction to your previous insistence that inscape was the essence of the postings at FFL landscape by quoting Hopkins then and there? Then and there the inscaped landscape markedly holding its most simple and beautiful oneness up from the ground through a graceful swerve below the spring of the branches up to the tops of the FFL timber. I saw the inscape freshly, as if my mind were still growing, though now the eye and the ear are for the most part shut. And instress, the doing-be of turquoiseb(ee) the positing or pitching of his whole self in his selving act of artistic will and thisness... now cannot come. Is there is one notable dead tree . . ? [:D] Verbum dei clarescit in forma hominis, Et ideo fulgemus cum illo, Edificantes membra sui pulcri corporis. Hildegard von Bingen: Ordo Virtutem --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: The Barry Wright Syndrome Barry decides he has a point of view about somethinge.g. Puja is trained moodmaking; persons on FFL are all bigoted Monkees Fan Club members. He then asserts that his point of view must be the equivalent of reality. But you see, he never conceives of the responsibility he has to prove this, or at least even try to make his case. No, Barry is a kind of totalitarian of the mind: he insists on the truth of his point of view, without seemingly any capacity or even inclination to convince even himself that what he says is true. This is a strange phenomenon; asserting something is the case, but refusing to argue it out as if there is any process [implicit in stating a strong opinion/judgment] whereby one has any obligation to demonstrate the reasonableness much less the truth of one's point of view. It is quite incredible to me. Barry, from within his highly charged emotional reactiveness, dreams up concepts and ideas which then can serve the purpose of expressing his own disillusionment, bitterness, cynicism. Barry feels entitled to say something is a certain way, and he never thinks: I must really experience this is true; or even: do I really believe that reality will somehow, either in the articulation of my point of view, or in the culmination of having expressed it, corroborate this opinion? But no, it all comes out of his uncontrollable need to lash out, to ridicule, to sneer, and to make the world over in the image of his own experience of being Barry Wright. I mean, certainly every idea and opinion that Barry expresseswe are mostly talking here about matters pertaining to TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the TM Movement: i.e. what has first drawn us into posting at FFLis worth considering, examined objectively; but the problem is this: Barry drags in his negative emotionalityI suppose he is oblivious to thisand lets that drive his opinion. So that whattake this post herehappens is that someone has said: Your mother is ugly and she behaves like a whore. The child of the woman who has thus been so characterized wonders: Is my mother really that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. That's what I was hoping to see in David Wants To Make A Movie, instead of the mopey, no surprises, overly long piece it turned out to be. Would have been interesting :-) BTW; why did the wife of this fellow allow Bevan to touch her in the first place, perhaps her husband had necglected his duties for too long ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] MERU GLOBAL WINTER ASSEMBLY
I assume Maharishi's Supreme Blessings to Mankind consisted of giving us an imaginary currency, an imaginary country, an imaginary king and prince and then finally shuffling off?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLfXGVGz-4feature=related From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:26:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK) Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Some are more worthy than others. :-) Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree. Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed is visible in Yahoo's Message View. Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to remove. You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking Kleenex—You wimps. I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I pressed your button once more! Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't feel I owe anyone here anything. Not a response to something they post, and certainly not an argument or an impassioned defense of something I said. Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking. Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myself—not good for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the time]—and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream memories. But your ice-cream maker—your second one—didn't he choke to death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest opinion. You aren't, are you—merely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can tell—scientists will back this up with their opinions—heliocentric. Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out your case? Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed their buttons? If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then why not join in the fun and defend yourself against counter-opining? You seem to take very seriously everything anyone says here contra your own opinions, because you are silent and unresponsive. This decision *never ever to
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Why don't the so-called progressives follow the rules ? Well, the anti-saint policy of the TM-Rajas in reality is a terrible dissonance here while, the children at Maharishi School are taught the behavioral rasayana, 'Be with wise people'. Guru Dev taught people to sit with Saints, Mahatmas and the Wise. Did Guru Dev instruct americans to do the same ? If everyone was to follow everyone else's instructions, even someone living in another age and continent it would all amount to a big mess. Maharishi told a lot of people all along to keep the company of the Saints and holy people. Right. And that was about 5o years ago. It's no longer valid, at least not for the Fairfield community. Get used to it. Left now with the TM-Rajas assailing the meditating community with their anti-saint policy guidelines, is it no wonder the Fairfield dome numbers are in turmoil. They are ? Did they not recently have historical high numbers ? There is no conscience in the TM-Raja position. They need to abandon it. Perhaps it is our dear Buck who needs to start owning the Movement who belongs to those that move and are not stuck in the past.
[FairfieldLife] Vag's Shring?
Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... http://www.arcane-archive.org/religion/hinduism/mantrarthabhidhanam-of-t\ he-varada-tantra-1.php We've all had this discussion before. The Tantra-s assign meanings to the various phonemes of a mantra. Of course it depends upon who is writing the Tantra and which lineage (sampradaya) he belongs too. The Vairagi Muni, Baba Hari Dass (of Ram Dass fame), has discussed this question on the meaning and non-meaning of mantras upon his chackboard. He says that in essence it boils down to whether it is a Nama-mantra (name of a deity/devataa) used for devotional attunement with meaning or a yogic mantra-sound used for meditation (dhyana) without any meaning - only the sound value. As usual, Vag cannot be objective so he employees subterfuge by using a different standard (ie, Tantic literature). The guy owns shares in Unipack, makers of Vaseline, so why expect anything else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: And meaning is vitally important, the idea of meaningless sounds is quite simply, a lie. One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from the Varada Tantra. It's first verse quotes Shiva, directly communicating to his counterpart, Parameshsvari: Sri Shiva said: Listen Oh Parameshsvari! Now I shall describe to you the meaning of Mantras. In the absence of any knowledge of which no one can get siddhi, even with a million sadhanas. Pretty clear, huh! What makes it so special is the clarity with which it describes the TM mantras. For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi, Repha (the guttural whirring of the R-sound) indicates dAna (giving, imparting, paying back); ee (I) indicates Tushti, satisfaction and contentment, the Nada indicates Para, the transcendent--that which is beyond; and the Bindu indicates the destroyer of discomforts and uneasiness. Thus shreeng is the Bija or Seed for the worship of Lakshmi. -The mantrarthabhidanam
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:21 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers BTW; why did the wife of this fellow allow Bevan to touch her in the first place, perhaps her husband had necglected his duties for too long ? Don't know. Such details weren't provided. Perhaps the touching wasn't appreciated and was reported to the husband???
[FairfieldLife] Re: MERU GLOBAL WINTER ASSEMBLY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: I assume Maharishi's Supreme Blessings to Mankind consisted of giving us an imaginary currency, an imaginary country, an imaginary king and prince and then finally shuffling off? And in doing so, streching your silly little world to the limit.
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Okay, this is your Amy riff of the day. LOL. I get that. :-) . . . While I'm at head trips folks here may want to check the Milla Jovovich movie Face in the Crowd. This is a psychological thriller where she plays a woman who suffer face blindness, the inability to remember people's faces. This is not a really great movie but they did pull off the experience of face blindness very well. And that makes it quite a head trip as you're not sure who she's talking to or meeting with. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Faces_in_the_Crowd/70201277 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1536410/ Thanks for mentioning this. I will check it out, possibly even later tonight, since it turned out to be a 20-minute download. Pirate. :-) Anyway, I would probably watch it just for Milla Jovovich I've been a real fan ever since I learned that she made up Leeloo's language in The Fifth Element. I even liked her in the Three Musk- eteers movie I ragged on recently. Trapped in a videogame production and script, I thought she did a damned good job as Milady Winter, one of the greatest female characters ever created in literature. She definitely brought a new light to the character. Since we're on the subject of movies, I'm 32 minutes into A Dangerous Method. The fact that I've paused it to read FFL should not be taken as a positive review. :-) So far, it's got the period and its mannerisms down pat, but it's also been a curious mix of underacting on the part of heavyweights Viggo Mortenson (as Sigmund Freud) and Michael Fassbinder (as Carl Jung), and overacting on the part of Keira Knightley (as Sabina Spielrein, former patient of both, who went on to become a noted therapist herself). I'll be interested in seeing how it portrays the disputes that Jung had with Freud. All three of the original characters were certainly fundamental to the birth of the science we call psychoanalysis. A good scene involves Freud, in his first meeting with Jung, correcting him, Judy-style, when he calls what they're co-inventing psychanalysis. Freud tells him in no uncertain terms that his word psychoanalysis is better. As portrayed here, Freud was clearly a man used to getting his own way. The main problem I have with watching this movie is that I keep chuckling at inappropriate points during the dialogue between Freud and Jung, because I keep remembering this Loose Parts cartoon. :-) [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/2928b550a05b012e2f8200163e41dd5b]
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:21 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers BTW; why did the wife of this fellow allow Bevan to touch her in the first place, perhaps her husband had necglected his duties for too long ? Don't know. Such details weren't provided. Perhaps the touching wasn't appreciated and was reported to the husband??? More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Neonazi Billy's Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM, emptybill wrote: Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... No it's not where I get my materials. I own copies of both the original texts and the translations. I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states: the mantras are being pronounced wrong and six eared. Perhaps this is why TMers go into demonic states of consciousness'?
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:43 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:21 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers BTW; why did the wife of this fellow allow Bevan to touch her in the first place, perhaps her husband had necglected his duties for too long ? Don't know. Such details weren't provided. Perhaps the touching wasn't appreciated and was reported to the husband??? More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Coulda been. I really don't know. Of course, this was just one woman. There were rumors of many. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). ... However, there's a lot of Wish Fulfillment from Another World; among the remaining TMO TB'rs. http://www.toddschorr.com/Paintings/image25.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM, emptybill wrote: Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... No it's not where I get my materials. I own copies of both the original texts and the translations. I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states: the mantras are being pronounced wrong and six eared. Perhaps this is why TMers go into demonic states of consciousness'?
[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)
Barry, Since you brought the subject up, it appears that you are hung up on the objectification of women. IMO, you have a specific image of what women should be like in your sexual fantasies. But you have not accepted them as human beings. Get over it dude! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man! (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message). Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine women and try to objectify them as performing according to the strict limits of his closed little belief system. Here's an interesting article on the different ways people objectify those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed. :-) The science of objectification http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/the_science_of_objectification/singleto\ nThe common wisdom is that naked women are seen as objects, but new research says it's more complicated than thatWhen Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a demure, long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made sure to detail exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually harassed by Herman Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well know that women are judged by what, and how little, they wear. A new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why our perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's a question at the heart of contentious debates about everything from objectification in pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically it's been assumed that this is something that happens when men perceive women the infamous male gaze and that it involves, as one of the study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the University of Maryland, put it, the wholesale stripping away of mind (in other words, viewing someone as a mindless sex object). This study challenges all of those ideas, he told me by phone. As a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men aren't the only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor is it unexpected that we perceive a person in their birthday suit as having less agency than, say, someone in a business suit. More intriguing, though, is that the data suggests that despite all that, our perception of naked people doesn't involve the aforementioned wholesale stripping of mind. Nakedness does change how we perceive a person, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive, vulnerable and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains, People perceive minds along two dimensions and not along one. So instead of seeing them as an object versus a person, we see them as two kinds of people. An agent and an experiencer. The study, More Than a Body: Mind Perception and the Nature of Objectification, is actually composed of several smaller studies, some of which asked participants to come to conclusions about naked and clothed porn stars pictured in photographs. In one exercise, images were featured from the book XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits, which contrasts high-quality portraits of stars like Jenna Jameson wearing regular street clothes with images of the same performers standing stark naked but, importantly, without any come-hither posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate male and female models in photographs showing just their face, or their face and upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when the focus is on a person's body and not his or her face. The study itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as beings who are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may be even more capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and passions. This may not be the most humanizing view, but the authors note that being perceived as such can actually be a good thing in certain situations like when you're complaining to your doctor about a pain. In that case, it might be beneficial to be seen as a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds, If you're with your partner then you might want to think of them as a body, he says. If you want to make love, you want to be thinking about their experience and not, like, `Oh, are we planning on submitting these mortgage payments on time?' It's useful for our
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Why do I have the creepy feeling that if Bevan had hit on Nabby's girlfriend Nabby's reaction would have been to ask if he could watch them fuck? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Yifu wrote: Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). Bizarre! I think Robin might possibly agree with you on this one. I've told the story here before of showing up at Purusha headquarters in S. Fallsburg to visit a friend on Purusha. Two psychics who were in the car were afraid to get out when they saw the auras of the Pursuhites! WTF? In order to keep using my TM mantra, I actually was given the full mantra by other gurus. Seems to work better for me. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). Dear Abby, I'm find myself reading this and imagining Kermie as a demon, and somehow I don't find that image terrifying. Does this mean I've already gone over to the Dark Side? :-) However, there's a lot of Wish Fulfillment from Another World; among the remaining TMO TB'rs. http://www.toddschorr.com/Paintings/image25.html Interesting comment. Care to expand upon it? No prob if you don't. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM, emptybill wrote: Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... No it's not where I get my materials. I own copies of both the original texts and the translations. I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states: the mantras are being pronounced wrong and six eared. Perhaps this is why TMers go into demonic states of consciousness'?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)
Right on Barry.. we both agree on John. And we both read Salon. Did you read this - http://life.salon.com/2011/11/04/the_fantasy_of_a_cheating_wife/singleton/?mobile.html I'm sure this is one of John's fantasies. That's 50 and out for me. I'll bring my needy, narcissistic ass back on Friday :-) On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:34 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man! (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message). Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine women and try to objectify them as performing according to the strict limits of his closed little belief system. Here's an interesting article on the different ways people objectify those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed. :-) The science of objectification The common wisdom is that naked women are seen as objects, but new research says it's more complicated than that When Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a demure, long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made sure to detail exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually harassed by Herman Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well know that women are judged by what, and how little, they wear. A new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why our perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's a question at the heart of contentious debates about everything from objectification in pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically it's been assumed that this is something that happens when men perceive women — the infamous male gaze — and that it involves, as one of the study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the University of Maryland, put it, the wholesale stripping away of mind (in other words, viewing someone as a mindless sex object). This study challenges all of those ideas, he told me by phone. As a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men aren't the only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor is it unexpected that we perceive a person in their birthday suit as having less agency than, say, someone in a business suit. More intriguing, though, is that the data suggests that despite all that, our perception of naked people doesn't involve the aforementioned wholesale stripping of mind. Nakedness does change how we perceive a person, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive, vulnerable and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains, People perceive minds along two dimensions and not along one. So instead of seeing them as an object versus a person, we see them as two kinds of people. An agent and an experiencer. The study, More Than a Body: Mind Perception and the Nature of Objectification, is actually composed of several smaller studies, some of which asked participants to come to conclusions about naked and clothed porn stars pictured in photographs. In one exercise, images were featured from the book XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits, which contrasts high-quality portraits of stars like Jenna Jameson wearing regular street clothes with images of the same performers standing stark naked but, importantly, without any come-hither posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate male and female models in photographs showing just their face, or their face and upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when the focus is on a person's body and not his or her face. The study itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as beings who are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may be even more capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and passions. This may not be the most humanizing view, but the authors note that being perceived as such can actually be a good thing in certain situations — like when you're complaining to your doctor about a pain. In that case, it might be beneficial to be seen as a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds, If you're with your partner then you might want to think of them as a body, he says. If you want to make love, you want to be thinking about their experience and not, like, `Oh, are we planning on submitting these mortgage payments on time?' It's useful for our perceptions of people to change, depending on the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 5:43 AM, cardemaister wrote:
Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me. IMO, the basic
element of that category of biija mantras seems to be
'agni' read backwards: 'inga'. If the first/final a-sound
is only implied, like in 'agni' (agniH/agnim/agninaa, etc)
for some sandhi positions,([a]gni/ing[a]), it might make that basic
element even more effective?? :o
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/164856
And meaning is vitally important, the idea of meaningless sounds is
quite simply, a lie.
One of my favorite mantra dictionaries is the Mantrarthabhidanam from
the Varada Tantra. It's first verse quotes Shiva, directly
communicating to his counterpart, Parameshsvari:
Sri Shiva said: Listen Oh Parameshsvari! Now I shall describe to you
the meaning of Mantras. In the absence of any knowledge of which no
one can get siddhi, even with a million sadhanas.
Pretty clear, huh! What makes it so special is the clarity with which
it describes the TM mantras.
For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the
first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi, Repha (the guttural whirring of
the R-sound)
OMG! Must admit I've never heard or read that repha is a
*guttural* sound! Just tried it, sounds to me like I'm
extremely angry when I pronounce it! There's something
in it that reminds me of Siberian shamans and mammoth hunters... ;-)
At least here in Finland people pronounce the r-sound like
that when they imitate badly alcoholized people... :o
repha m. a burring guttural sound , the letter %{r} (as so pronounced) Pra1t.
S3rS. ; a word BhP. ; (in prosody) a cretic ($) Pin3g. ; passion , affection of
the mind L. ; mfn. low , vile , contemptible L. (cf. %{repa}).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:08 PM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). Dear Abby, I'm find myself reading this and imagining Kermie as a demon, and somehow I don't find that image terrifying. Does this mean I've already gone over to the Dark Side? :-) Yes. But do 108 x 108 malas of the Miss Piggie Mantra and you'll be just fine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
Vag is no Sanskrit reader. Vaj: I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... Maybe so, but you didn't seem to know that 'shring' is a tantric bija mantra. For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states... Interestingly, if the opinions of these bodies are to be set aside at any time after 1941, only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Santananda) can be traced directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions. - Vidyasakar Sundaresan http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:08 PM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). Dear Abby, I find myself reading this and imagining Kermie as a demon, and somehow I don't find that image terrifying. Does this mean I've already gone over to the Dark Side? :-) Yes. But do 108 x 108 malas of the Miss Piggie Mantra and you'll be just fine. Thank you, guru Vaj. I bow at your most bountiful feet. I have performed the mantras as directed, but now I find my mind full of fantasies that I -- low, unevolved doofus that I am -- see as verging on barnyard porn. I admit to never before having entertained ideas of getting it on with a...pi...uh...with a person of the porcine persuasion. But since repeating the Miss Piggie Mantra, I have. Is this a feature of the technique you recommended, or a bug? Hoping for it to be a bug, and for a speedy fixpack, Turq
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
re: Demonic possession at Domes. It's a type of psychic awareness, strong enough to grok and state...an observation; but not yet scientific enough for acceptance on that level. (but stay tuned...additional corroboration may come later). The awareness is difficult to describe but leads to visceral reactions such as feelings of repugnance upon having encountered a Presence one should initially flee from. I'm experimenting with various mantras designed - - originally intended as karma busting procedures. ... In regard of outright demonic attacks, for example at work, I used mantras on 3 levels of activity: 1. Overall karma busting, without regard to any particular type of karma, with a focus on the Medicine Master Buddha usually. 2. With a focus on Shiva - again, a generalized approach but with the intention that the victim (the person at work sending me the bad vibes) will collapse in in herself/himself with the psychic attacks being repulsed, rebounded from my attention space. 3. In the case of really horrific attacks demanding immediate attention, the intense repetition of mantras associated with the Santeria Saints (originally the Orishas from W. Africa), are called for. In other words, what might be called Voodoo. This usually does the trick if #1 and #2 are insufficient. These types of mantras block the psychic pathways of the victim and heap upon the recipient additional burdens and woes of the worst type. A Cuban Sorcerer initiated me into this practice. ... However, I might add that #1 and #2 are pre-emptive measures designed to offset bad karma before it happens, (demolishing it at the pass so to speak); while #3 is a type of after-the-fact measure. ... http://www.popaganda.com/media/blogs/store/status%20faction%20ptgSM.JPG ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@ wrote: Thx...although I've met countless TM'ers, I've not seen any evidence of demons except what I can grok coming out of the Domes. (Lots of frog demons infecting the place). Dear Abby, I'm find myself reading this and imagining Kermie as a demon, and somehow I don't find that image terrifying. Does this mean I've already gone over to the Dark Side? :-) However, there's a lot of Wish Fulfillment from Another World; among the remaining TMO TB'rs. http://www.toddschorr.com/Paintings/image25.html Interesting comment. Care to expand upon it? No prob if you don't. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM, emptybill wrote: Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... No it's not where I get my materials. I own copies of both the original texts and the translations. I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states: the mantras are being pronounced wrong and six eared. Perhaps this is why TMers go into demonic states of consciousness'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: re: Demonic possession at Domes. It's a type of psychic awareness, strong enough to grok and state...an observation; but not yet scientific enough for acceptance on that level. (but stay tuned...additional corroboration may come later). Cool. I guess. I do not deny this, or bristle at it in the slightest. I haven't been part of any dome experience since probably 1978. I have no idea what it might feel like to be in a modern golden dome and have no desire to find out. No natural tendency of the mind in that direction whatsoever. The awareness is difficult to describe but leads to visceral reactions such as feelings of repugnance upon having encountered a Presence one should initially flee from. I'm experimenting with various mantras designed - - originally intended as karma busting procedures. Good luck. I guess. :-) I have no real experience in this area to pass along to you, having reacted to the occasional demonic presences in my life the same way I react to attention vampires on FFL...by ignoring them. Except for one experience with a cool mantra. I was having a spate of unsettling dreams, as in one or more astral badasses trying to get me, which is WAY rare for me, and I happened to mention it to a friend who was in China, studying Taoist herbalogy and alchemy. He wrote back that night to tell me the Taoist mantra for dispelling dark forces, whether in dreams or in everyday life. Strangely enough, the mantra was Ha! That night, finding myself surrounded by the same badasses in the dream plane, I remembered my friend's advice and decided to shout out the Taoist mantra. I did, with a mighty Ha! And all of the badasses shriveled up into a tiny pile resembling a pile of dead leaves. I awoke amazed, and having no explan- ation for the sychronicity. I still have none. But I really do love the image of beings who consider themselves badassses being brought low simply by being laughed at. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me... Vaj: For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi... The TM 'shring' bija has nothing to do with Sri Lakshmi. The Sri Vidya bijas are used in TM, which come from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, a Sri Vidya adherent. You conjecture is rubbish! However, the late orthodox leader of the largest Samaya school of Sri Vidya, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal, says that the Sri in Sri Vidya is a title of respect meaning The Vidya and has no connotation to Laksmi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
turquoiseb: Thanks for mentioning this. I will check it out, possibly even later tonight, since it turned out to be a 20-minute download. Pirate. :-) You turned out to be quite the software pirate! Do you ever pay for anything, or are you just poor? You probably even stole Bruse Cockburn albums! Maybe your next move should be to China - you'd fit right in! Go figure. The latest offensive in the content industry's never-ending war on copyright infringement is the Stop Online Piracy Act, which was introduced in the House two weeks ago. It incorporates key provisions of the Senate's Protect IP Act as well as another Senate bill that makes unauthorized streaming a felony... 'The Stop Online Piracy Act: Big Content's full-on assault against the Safe Harbor' Ars Technica: http://tinyurl.com/6tm3fyk
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Why do I have the creepy feeling that if Bevan had hit on Nabby's girlfriend Nabby's reaction would have been to ask if he could watch them fuck? :-) Because you are sick ?
[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)
Ravi Yogi: Did you read this - http://life.salon.com/2011/11/04/the_fantasy_of_a_cheating_wife/singleton/?mobile.html Maybe that's one of the reason you no longer have a wife?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
The viciousness begins. Where is the 'opinion' here, Barry Baby? Barry suckers punchesthen insists: It's all opinion, folks! The knife goes in. Fuck off, Barry. The human race is embarrassed. Curtis to the rescue pronto. Santa --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Why do I have the creepy feeling that if Bevan had hit on Nabby's girlfriend Nabby's reaction would have been to ask if he could watch them fuck? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Don't know. Such details weren't provided. Perhaps the touching wasn't appreciated and was reported to the husband??? More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Coulda been. I really don't know. Of course, this was just one woman. There were rumors of many. The apple does not fall far from the tree. American predujice about sex, that's all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Don't know. Such details weren't provided. Perhaps the touching wasn't appreciated and was reported to the husband??? More speculation about the speculations; the wife flirted and invited him to touch, husband hears of this, goes bananas and now they're divorced. :-) Coulda been. I really don't know. Of course, this was just one woman. There were rumors of many. The apple does not fall far from the tree. American predujice about sex, that's all. Or prejudice, or whatever...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:11 PM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: Sorry, but that seems like rubbish to me... Vaj: For example, another level of the TM mantra Shreeng is Sa (the first letter) indicates Mahalakshmi... The TM 'shring' bija has nothing to do with Sri Lakshmi. The Sri Vidya bijas are used in TM, which come from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, a Sri Vidya adherent. You conjecture is rubbish! Mahesh was not a sishya of HD Swami Brahmananda we now know from first-hand sources Willy. So it's highly unlikely that he would have had any connection to samaya sri vidya. The first the world generally found out about Brahmananda's connection to sri vidya was when Swami Rama's publication Living with the Himalayan Masters was published. Shortly thereafter, I began posting this info (and source info on the TM mantras tantric origins) on early internet bulletin board services and despite a good number of TM teachers (mostly helping people damaged thru TM), no one knew about it. Since then numerous folks have been initiated into samaya sri vidya, but none that I have spoken to have commented on ANY similarity whatsoever. So I believe it's your conjecture that's rubbish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Rick Archer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Interesting the part in that TM documentary film where David Lynch turns to the camera vehemently saying, Leave us alone. Bevan back in 1993 came through Fairfield and said the same thing about meditators here who did not have a level of ,, faith and belief in Maharishi. That people who did not have faith and belief in Maharishi should leave us alone and leave Fairfield. Bevan methodically moved through the community saying that then and has ever since been testing people's loyalty to that. Very good. Bevan is truly a good man ! Yes. That was vividly illustrated the time he was hosting a hoity-toity campus gathering, when a man stormed into the room, shoved Bevan to the floor, and stood over him with fists clenched, threatening to beat the shit out of him if Bevan ever again touched his wife. That's what I was hoping to see in David Wants To Make A Movie, instead of the mopey, no surprises, overly long piece it turned out to be. Would have been interesting :-) BTW; why did the wife of this fellow allow Bevan to touch her in the first place, perhaps her husband had necglected his duties for too long ? It does seem odd though that the President of a University that is all about realizing one's potential doesn't have a stable relationship with a woman, and instead tries out his charms on the wives of those who work for him. Probably due to the bubble effect that occurs in any organization, in addition to his exalted status in the org. You'd think he could meet someone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MERU GLOBAL WINTER ASSEMBLY [2 Attachments]
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote: I assume Maharishi's Supreme Blessings to Mankind consisted of giving us an imaginary currency, an imaginary country, an imaginary king and prince and then finally shuffling off? And in doing so, streching your silly little world to the limit. Actually, I lived a silly world listening to and following the latest money draw from His Holiness.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of whynotnow7 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers It does seem odd though that the President of a University that is all about realizing one's potential doesn't have a stable relationship with a woman, and instead tries out his charms on the wives of those who work for him. Probably due to the bubble effect that occurs in any organization, in addition to his exalted status in the org. You'd think he could meet someone. Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of whynotnow7 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers It does seem odd though that the President of a University that is all about realizing one's potential doesn't have a stable relationship with a woman, and instead tries out his charms on the wives of those who work for him. Probably due to the bubble effect that occurs in any organization, in addition to his exalted status in the org. You'd think he could meet someone. Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements. Which ofcourse is perfectly allright.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
Photo captured of one of B's Mistresses: http://www.popaganda.com/media/blogs/store/milkmade%20-%20SM.JPG --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of whynotnow7 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers It does seem odd though that the President of a University that is all about realizing one's potential doesn't have a stable relationship with a woman, and instead tries out his charms on the wives of those who work for him. Probably due to the bubble effect that occurs in any organization, in addition to his exalted status in the org. You'd think he could meet someone. Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:21 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements. Which ofcourse is perfectly allright. Just for Bevan, or for both Bevan and Maharishi?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:21 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements. Which ofcourse is perfectly allright. Just for Bevan, or for both Bevan and Maharishi? For everyone. Why do you ask ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shring?
This is bullshit unless you can provide proof of how and when SBS transmitted Shri Vidya bija mantras to MMY. TM mantras are standard mantras used by every pandit and pujari in and out of India. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... wrote: The TM 'shring' bija has nothing to do with Sri Lakshmi. The Sri Vidya bijas are used in TM, which come from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, a Sri Vidya adherent. You conjecture is rubbish! However, the late orthodox leader of the largest Samaya school of Sri Vidya, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal, says that the Sri in Sri Vidya is a title of respect meaning The Vidya and has no connotation to Laksmi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Vidya
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 05 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Nov 12 00:00:00 2011 828 messages as of (UTC) Fri Nov 11 00:05:00 2011 52 richardwillytexwilliams willy...@yahoo.com 51 obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com 51 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 50 authfriend jst...@panix.com 50 Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net 50 Denise Evans dmevans...@yahoo.com 50 Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com 47 Yifu yifux...@yahoo.com 46 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 34 seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net 33 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 32 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 31 whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com 25 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 23 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 22 John jr_...@yahoo.com 20 wgm4u anitaoak...@att.net 20 tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com 19 maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com 16 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 14 johnt johnlasher20002...@yahoo.com 12 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 10 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 8 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 7 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 7 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 7 Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 6 jpgillam jpgil...@yahoo.com 5 Susan waybac...@yahoo.com 5 MichaelB bax8...@aol.com 4 wle...@aol.com 4 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 3 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 3 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 2 shukra69 shukr...@yahoo.ca 2 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 1 stevelf ysoy1...@yahoo.com 1 shainm307 shainm...@yahoo.com 1 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 eustace10679 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 alexander_oprea_shift alexander_oprea_sh...@yahoo.com 1 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 1 Bill Coop williamgc...@gmail.com Posters: 43 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Neonazi Billy's Shring?
So you claim to read devanagari texts. We can therefore submit passages which you will translate to demonstrate your skills. Right? We've already gone over the variants of ing/.m which Svarupananda chooses not to acknowledge. Your statement is just barking ... woof woof. BTW ... who is your guru/sampradaya and what is your date and place of learning TM. Do you even claim to have learned TM? O yeah, one more thing. I never was a neo-nazi and don't know much about them. My predecessor was an altgenazim, which is not, however, to be confused with an ashkenazim. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:16 PM, emptybill wrote: Vag is no Sanskrit reader. This is where he gets this stuff ... No it's not where I get my materials. I own copies of both the original texts and the translations. I've been reading Sanskrit texts since I was 15 years old... For the Shankaracharya tradition POV, I would rely on Brahmananda's successor who states: the mantras are being pronounced wrong and six eared. Perhaps this is why TMers go into demonic states of consciousness'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
This was always one of my favorites. Still is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUzs5dlLrm0 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: Then I saw your Fairy Field life post, now I'm a believer I thought FFL was only true in fairy tales Meant for someone else but not for me. But FFL was out to get me That's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. I couldn't leave the place if I tried. I thought FFL was more or less a givin' thing, Seems the more I gave the less I got. What's the use in tryin'? All you get is pain. When I needed sunshine I got rain. Then I saw your post, now I'm a believer Not a trace of doubt in my mind. a true FFL believer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Well, this was certainly an effective troll. :-) But the more I think about it, the more apt an analogy it is to Fairfield Life, or to Fairfield itself, and the level of fanboy fanaticism that people who frequent those worlds often display. What I expected when I posted this was for about half the people to laugh, getting that their everyday behavior on FFL really *does* equate to over-the-top fans of a non-memorable faux pop group. In other words, I expected folks to be able to laugh at themselves a little. Big mistake. T'would seem that this is impossible for many here, who feel that 1) everything they write is not only a statement of truth but one that has to be sold to others *as* truth, and 2) that they are so important that they *have* to be taken seriously. That's *exactly* the level of fanatical fandom you would find in a real-life group of Monkees fans. They, too, would be incapable of seeing themselves as they appear to more...uh...normal people, and incapable of laughing at that image. Instead, they'd get angry and uptight. *Just* like a few here seem to have done. The thing is, what they're angry about IMO (and all I write on this forum *is* opinion, not truth) is that the metaphor just *nails* it. They've managed to turn a simplistic form of meditation into a religion, just as they turned 20 minutes twice a day into several hours a day, and being unable to talk about anything else, because in their lives there IS nothing else. Or little else. TMers on FFL have become as monotopical as fanatical Monkees fans would be, if they still existed. Anyway, I thought it was a fun metaphor at the time, and still do. And I suspect that its accuracy is proved by how strongly some reacted to having a little fun poked at them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for a metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up with such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider this my version of Bhairitu's The Funny Farm Lounge metaphor. :-) Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical Monkees fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the glory days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They argue about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep esoteric meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, because however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any other musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first place.
[FairfieldLife] Bunny and Santa
by Todd Schorr http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bWidiVJ9ims/SuZumdTbnlI/B8I/3A7YVpbgf0I/s1600-h/n%29+schorr_santa_bunny.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
Hey, thanks for the reply. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Those who don't feel that their opinions ARE opinions are welcome to make a big to-do about that and act like drama queens. I shall graciously allow them to do so, while chuckling from behind my tree. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
I didn't realize Maharishi had not allowed him to do so. For a sensual beast like Bevan that must be quite a strain. I'd chuck it personally, but where else can he go, and get that kind of attention? A devil of a bargain. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of whynotnow7 Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers It does seem odd though that the President of a University that is all about realizing one's potential doesn't have a stable relationship with a woman, and instead tries out his charms on the wives of those who work for him. Probably due to the bubble effect that occurs in any organization, in addition to his exalted status in the org. You'd think he could meet someone. Maharishi wouldn't let him get married and used to refer to him as the head of Purusha so, like Maharishi, he couldn't publically have a partner, and resorted to clandestine arrangements.
[FairfieldLife] Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK)
Good stuff. Now I'm off to see the Blues play the Maple Leafs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Gone Mental (was Re: WHY TM CAN'T BE LEARNED FROM A BOOK) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So the time may be approach- ing in which I'm not gonna find anything posted here inter- esting enough to reply to. It's all been done to death and argued endlessly *in exactly the same words* for decades now. SO been there, done that. We are not worthy! Some are more worthy than others. :-) Actually, I think if Barry wanted to be honest about it, his posting here is more akin to what we probably all did at least once or twice when we were eight year olds - namely ringing someone's door bell and then running away. I mean, sheesh, if you are into pushing peoples buttons, why not stick around every once in a while instead of going and hiding behind a tree. Barry Wright: Why bother? Everything I need to know about who got their buttons pushed and how severely they got pushed is visible in Yahoo's Message View. Santa Claus: Barry, Baby, you are asserting something without any feel for the way it is playing in reality. This is called perfect subjective dislocation from the necessary feedback which the universe is giving you. Get it, Barry? When you blow your nose on your sleeve, there is some mucus there which, if you want to still look pretty, you have to remove. You can't just say: The Kleenex idea, it's just an opinion. My sleeve is just as good an absorber of my snot as your bloody Kleenex. I don't need no fucking KleenexYou wimps. I blow my snot on myself and you guys offer me a Kleenex: Hey, I guess I pressed your button once more! Barry Wright: And I thought I stated quite explicitly that I don't feel I owe anyone here anything. Not a response to something they post, and certainly not an argument or an impassioned defense of something I said. Santa Claus: If you tell us, Barry, that ice-cream tastes good because of the placebo effect, we are not exercised about this. It don't bother us ice-cream eaters that much. Even though you used to be one of those who licked down to the bottom and then ate the cone. The deliciousness of ice-cream: just so you know, everyone: That was trained moodmaking. Maybe. Maybe not. But if in trying to tell us ice-cream just tasted good because we were told it was good, then it isn't really a matter of opinion, Barry: it is a matter of negative wish-fulfillment. It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of the sensation in your mouth. For some reason you tasted a different brand of ice-cream [by the way, I stopped eating that damn ice-cream myselfnot good for me; still I don't say it didn't go down good with me at the time]and then found yourself having to kill off the old ice-cream memories. But your ice-cream makeryour second onedidn't he choke to death on one of his own cones? My opinion, maybe; but if he's not sending you any e-mails, and can't be located anywhere, maybe it's not an opinion. Your last Guru, Barry: he's dead. That's my strongest opinion. You aren't, are youmerely giving your opinions when you get your hate on about someone on FFL, are you, Barry boy? Opinions mean some absence of knowledge. But you, surely if you were only expressing opinions in your hatred, would have to question the truthfulness of these opinions. And since you give us your opinions about, say, the geocentric reality of the universe, us Galileos, have to set you right: the universe is not Barry-centric; it is, as far as we can tellscientists will back this up with their opinionsheliocentric. Is Sati merely a matter of opinion, Barry? Should a woman be obliged to throw herself upon her husband's funeral pyre? Is your hatred of Judy mere opinion? Do you hold your views to be opinions only? How can an opinion generate intense feelings of hostility? And why, Barry dearest, do you ever refuse to argue out your case? Barry, if you expressed your attitude and beliefs *as if you knew when you stated them* they were just opinions, and they held only this status with you, then why are you bothered when we come back with our opinions about your opinions? You say x is y here at FFL. Does that mean that if someone realizes that x is not y, that making this known to you constitutes your having pressed their buttons? If you truly felt everything everyone said here on FFL was just opining, then why not join in the fun and defend yourself against counter-opining? You seem to take very seriously everything anyone says here contra your own opinions, because you are silent and unresponsive. This decision *never ever to rebut those who disagree with you*, that is decision you make at the level of opinion? As in: it is my opinion that no matter what Robin or anyone's else says, I should not
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: The viciousness begins. Where is the 'opinion' here, Barry Baby? Barry suckers punchesthen insists: It's all opinion, folks! The knife goes in. Barrycam: http://tinyurl.com/7p9bl9e
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Monkees Fan Club metaphor
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:32 PM, seventhray1 wrote: This was always one of my favorites. Still is. Me too. An old Carole King song.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount ffl.postcount@... wrote: Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 05 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Nov 12 00:00:00 2011 828 messages as of (UTC) Fri Nov 11 00:05:00 2011 52 richardwillytexwilliams willytex@... 51 obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com 51 Vaj vajradhatu@... Looks like Vaj and Willytex get to join Obby for some time off. See y'all back here on the 18th.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mayor's Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: The viciousness begins. Where is the 'opinion' here, Barry Baby? Barry suckers punchesthen insists: It's all opinion, folks! The knife goes in. Barrycam: http://tinyurl.com/7p9bl9e Alexcam: http://tinyurl.com/yce9u4e
[FairfieldLife] Pool party cam
by Natalia Fabia: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/pool-party_natalia.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pool party cam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: by Natalia Fabia: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/pool-party_natalia.jpg Hot tub cam: http://youtu.be/sOJMV6i3bjM
[FairfieldLife] New video of Jerry Jarvis
He sure has changed, amazing transformation. Looks like a democrat to me! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbh70rfcNo4
