[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of the credibility for his own theories which were from a spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through oversimplification. Not every scholar believes that, of course. Anti-TM people like to cite Dana Sawyer who deliberately sought out people who supported his eventual anti-TM stance, while deliberately ignoring those who supported MMY from the same tradition. I like to cite my old friend Anoop Chandola, who is not only a Sanskrit/Hindu scholar, but has one very close family member who was part of the committee who selected SBS in the first place. Google the two names and see which has more academic recognition in the arena of Hindu/asian culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Sawyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Chandola Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life that the yogis seem to miss. Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the results of this misunderstanding. Don't know that that is the case, though of course, the reclusive lifestyle certainly emphasizes this. Insomuch as MMY lived as a recluse for a while, he too, emphasized it, though a radio interview from the late 60's quotes him as saying that had he known that one could become enlightened while being a householder, he probably would have married and had kids. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his marketing star to. not to mention that the basic concept of stress and samskaras fit together quite well, on a superficial level, and the fact that the physiological correlates of pure consciousness and the physiological correlates of stress seem to be at opposite ends of neurological functioning, even as our scientific understanding of the two states has grown since Selye first spoke with MMY and later, when he wrote that essay that you quote. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. These are two different logical levels I don't think they are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how Seyle presented his ideas. except that twas selye himself who gave MMY the idea, and the evidence for the idea has grown over teh decades since then. And marketing is your weasely denigrating term. It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your term weasely which is a distraction from me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dana Sawyer needs photos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and the negative aspects of these concepts. -Hans Selye Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the nervous system. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...). For him, normal, natural functioning of the nervous system seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing any resistance to mental activity, or stuff. YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves): taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii. (tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.) Word-for-word: that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii. I 51 tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH. (tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.) Its also nirodha-in all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi. IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. The two definitions converge. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html What stress is not The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical opinion: Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the body. Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in local stress reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only local stress and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of the specific activity. Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, not stress itself. Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which are caused by stress. Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be produced by virtually any agent. Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that of exhilarating, creative,
[FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessand evidently unanswerablein challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingand culturally attunedin their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentand it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingand terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personno matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death in the FFL family last night. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. I am sure, though, his absence from FFL will be quite a relief to certain posters who came under his inspired scrutinyThat is, especially those posters who knew they would make matters worse if they attempted to answer him. And so they didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey Lawson: On Nov 26, 2011, at 2:04 AM, sparaig wrote: ONe of the more recent (15th? 14th? century) upanishads describes yogic flying in the stages that MMY does. I assume he was quoting it. Please: which Upanishad makes this (heretical) claim? At least Yoga-tattva-upanishad! Which heretical claim would that be? Lawson didn't describe any claims. You seem to have read that into what he wrote. The Shankaracharya trad. is very, very clear on this: yogic flying cultivation is anathema for brahmi-chetana (Unity Consciousness). WTF? I've heard that masturbating will make you go blind and will cause hair to grow on your palms. It's also my understanding that the Church holds it to be a mortal sin. If you don't stop, you'll go to Hell. I missed this assertion above. I would agree with it insomuch as performance of the sidhis is always a barrier to samadhi. Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! --- But, as I have said before, it is an obstacle in the same way that a confidence course is an obstacle. Something that makes you stronger as you overcome it. At some point, it is certainly obvious that benefits from practicing the sidhis reach a point of diminishing returns, but my own intuition says that that point is reached when you perfect the sidhis, and not before. L.
[FairfieldLife] Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
Ignoring the context in which the term aggressive- passive recently arose, I propose a generic thread in which to (hopefully peaceably) discuss what I see as the genesis of that mindset. In an earlier reply to Curtis, I found myself dashing off the following sentence: Call me crazy, but I prefer -- both on the Internet and in real life -- having conversations with people whose definition of the word conversation does not include the word win. That's really how I see things. I participate in Inter- net chat forums to *chat*; that is, for the fun of just tossing ideas back and forth between people. I honestly don't think that any of my ideas are worth pushing on other people, or presenting as if they were some kind of truth. I have no clue as to truth. I don't even believe in the concept. I'm not even convinced about things being true. Pretty much the only thing that I'm convinced is true, at this point in my life, is that it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. And, of course, even that is not true. The sun no more rises than Hugh Hefner's dick does without Viagra. :-) So what I'm wondering is, Where does this compulsion to 'win' Internet discussions come from? With regard to TM, and this forum in particular, I think a lot of it comes from Maharishi. Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? But before that, I think we can trace this mindset back to Shankara, founder of the order and the philosophy that Maharishi...uh...borrowed from so extensively. *He* was a compulsive gotta win personality, and rose to whatever fame he achieved by holding debates all over India to prove that he was right and everybody else was wrong. You'll have to excuse my candor here, but WHAT A FUCKIN' WASTE OF LIFE! Life is so *cool*, man. There are infinite numbers of things to see and groove on presented to us every day. We will each see them and interpret them based on our own life experiences, and our own samskaras. And that's *OK* in my book. So why do so many seem to feel otherwise? Why do they tend to see every conversation-starter as the perfect opportunity for the argument I already have prepared, and was looking forward to having today? Seems like a waste of life to me. I prefer jackpotting ideas around with other more laissez-faire individuals, about things we mutually find interesting, even if only for the length of one conversation. That can be movies, or music, or some more spiritual topic, or even politics, if the other people can lighten up enough to laugh at it, as it should be laughed at. I honestly don't *understand* others' seemingly compulsive need to try to turn every exchange into a battle that they can win, even if only in their own minds. Can someone explain it to me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: The Shankaracharya trad. is very, very clear on this: yogic flying cultivation is anathema for brahmi-chetana (Unity Consciousness). WTF? snip I missed this assertion above. I would agree with it insomuch as performance of the sidhis is always a barrier to samadhi. But, as I have said before, it is an obstacle in the same way that a confidence course is an obstacle. Something that makes you stronger as you overcome it. Right, it's not a bug, it's a feature. The famous warning of Patanjali is actually a technical description of practice, it seems to me. At least the warning te samaadhaav upasargaa, vyutthaane siddhayaH ...refers *only* to the previous suutra describing the divine senses (#praatibha#-shraavaNa-vedana+aadarsha+aasvaada-vaartaa III 37) as a result of the knowledge of puruSa (puruSa-jñaanam, III 36). Both Vyaasa (te #praatibha#+aadayaH...) and Bhoja-deva (te *praak*- pratipaaditaaH[1]...) are IMO quite certain about that! 1. Can't refer to e.g. YF (III *43*), because 'praak-pratipaadita' means '*previosly* mentioned'. At some point, it is certainly obvious that benefits from practicing the sidhis reach a point of diminishing returns, but my own intuition says that that point is reached when you perfect the sidhis, and not before. Wouldn't know myself, but that makes sense.
[FairfieldLife] An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Dear Ravi, I am going to do a Ravi on you! The way you approached raunchydog, Alex, Rick, Steve, Jim, even Judy (have I left anyone out?), I am going to approach *you*. Now of course I cannot imitate youthat would take an acting skill I doubt anyone has; but what I can dosee if you can understand this:is *in being Robin towards you, essentially do what you attempted to do with these various persons*. I am going to use the Ravi technique of confrontation. I think I followed you quite acutelyeven metaphysicallyin each of these controversial and incendiary posts. I aim to pull off addressing you what you were perhaps attempting to pull off addressing them. Now you must not mistake me here: I will be just as bold and audacious as you were; but at the same timereading you as fairly as I canI am going to try to produce a particular response/reaction in yourself which will be like the one you provoked, say, into take two examplesRick and raunchydog, although only the latter actually spent energy and intelligence on getting back at you. Now I don't know how you will respond to this Ravi experiment performed through Robin, but I can assure you it will be interesting. And you will have to assume that I am being absolutely sincere; even if youand I suppose almost every FFL readerwill not go along in the least with what I am saying. It will be, then, a kind of *performance*, but I shall stay in contact with whatever muses inspire me, for if I lose this inspiration the whole exercise will just fall flat. I aim to keep my performance going from beginning to end. But this is a warning: you will not get what you expect, what you could even imagine. And I think this was the experience that *some* of these other persons got when they received their posts from you. So, then, Ravi, consider me an honourable person with the very best of motives. I don't pretend I am going to persuade you of the 'truth' of what I am about to do; that is not what I am about here. Certainly I will write what I feel is true; however my intention will be to precipitate in you something uncontrollable reactive, something, then, which bypasses every defence you have; even trangresses ultimate taboossomething I know you are very familiar with in your violent rhapsodies here at FFL. You claim to act, in some fundamental way, out of love. Permit me the same unspoken premise. I will act of out of love here, or at least out of the deepest of my convictions; but *not*, I emphasize *not*, out of some desire to clarify myself intellectually. Remember, Ravi: this is a performanceas I believe your various posts were. You found yourself moving in on each person and you elicited, I believe, exactly the response you anticipated you would. So, now you must prepare (and even the gentle readers of FFL must prepare) for a radical and outrageous and trangressive performance. There. Are you ready, Ravi? I hope so, because once I begin, in order for this experiment to 'work' you have to keep reading to the very end. And I should say right at the outset: *I am going to improvise my way into this and right through to its conclusion*. Now remember (this is *very* important): my intent is not to edify or persuade or argue *through content*; my ambition is to employ a certain dramatic mode of ambush which, in some wayat the level of principle at leastis the same as what you doand even what you did to me when I first came onto FFL. Most readers at FFL will not like what I have to say. But they should recollect: I am in the act of performing with Ravi as my audience. I am not aspiring to make myself understood or even reasonable. The sweeping generalizations which I am about to make will offend. But it must be remembered: I want to shock. Ready, Ravi? I am starting right now. Your video tape disproves entirely and absolutely the primacy of the existence the beloved, your 'realization', your spiritual mystical experience. I don't say that you do not experience that you have gone into another state of consciousness, that your sense of the holiness of what has happened to you isn't true. I just say that it is essentially irrelevant to the business, the reality of being Ravi Chivukula. What comes through in that video you made of yourself chanting, is just a person vulnerable, loving, wounded, and sincere. Nothing of Hinduism, of spiritualityeven as you are repeating sacred wordscomes through. There is only a human being there, terribly open, terribly distressed, terribly innocent, terribly but beautifully confused. Therefore, just on the basis of this video I reject everything Hindu, Eastern, mystical that has happened to you. That is to say that anything of this whole spirituality has anything whatsoever to do with Ravi Chivukula. Nothing. It is all a fiction, a lie, an illusion, a hallucination. But in a sense, where I see you, Ravi, you have not even been touched at your core by any of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
Re: Colonoscopy I can't imagine that many of the TB TM old timers on this forum have any problem with colonoscopy. After all, they've got their heads so far up their asses already that all they have to do to perform a colonoscopy is turn their heads and look around. :-) Barry Wright October 10, 2011 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Ignoring the context in which the term aggressive- passive recently arose, I propose a generic thread in which to (hopefully peaceably) discuss what I see as the genesis of that mindset. In an earlier reply to Curtis, I found myself dashing off the following sentence: Call me crazy, but I prefer -- both on the Internet and in real life -- having conversations with people whose definition of the word conversation does not include the word win. That's really how I see things. I participate in Inter- net chat forums to *chat*; that is, for the fun of just tossing ideas back and forth between people. I honestly don't think that any of my ideas are worth pushing on other people, or presenting as if they were some kind of truth. I have no clue as to truth. I don't even believe in the concept. I'm not even convinced about things being true. Pretty much the only thing that I'm convinced is true, at this point in my life, is that it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. And, of course, even that is not true. The sun no more rises than Hugh Hefner's dick does without Viagra. :-) So what I'm wondering is, Where does this compulsion to 'win' Internet discussions come from? With regard to TM, and this forum in particular, I think a lot of it comes from Maharishi. Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? But before that, I think we can trace this mindset back to Shankara, founder of the order and the philosophy that Maharishi...uh...borrowed from so extensively. *He* was a compulsive gotta win personality, and rose to whatever fame he achieved by holding debates all over India to prove that he was right and everybody else was wrong. You'll have to excuse my candor here, but WHAT A FUCKIN' WASTE OF LIFE! Life is so *cool*, man. There are infinite numbers of things to see and groove on presented to us every day. We will each see them and interpret them based on our own life experiences, and our own samskaras. And that's *OK* in my book. So why do so many seem to feel otherwise? Why do they tend to see every conversation-starter as the perfect opportunity for the argument I already have prepared, and was looking forward to having today? Seems like a waste of life to me. I prefer jackpotting ideas around with other more laissez-faire individuals, about things we mutually find interesting, even if only for the length of one conversation. That can be movies, or music, or some more spiritual topic, or even politics, if the other people can lighten up enough to laugh at it, as it should be laughed at. I honestly don't *understand* others' seemingly compulsive need to try to turn every exchange into a battle that they can win, even if only in their own minds. Can someone explain it to me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
The TM-conservative element inside evidently has the stronger hand over the progressive TM'ers. The progressives get tolerated as much as they are in that they are productive at teaching TM through Hagelin's work over with David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is interesting in this because his works are extra-territorial in his foundation. Lynch does not have to go through Bevan so much; yet, Hagelin can't just do things by himself without bringing the TM0 conservatives along. So as you say, mode is in a range between membership that is practitioner-client based on the one hand and discipleship-cult on the other. It's a good analysis. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the preservationists at all costs is really where the cult is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice . Thank you for providing this information, Buck. I was going to ask how someone who was recently turned down for a dome pass got to attend. And I'm happy that you *got* to attend, if you found it valuable or meaningful. Really. But doesn't it just say it all that a knowledge meeting, the purpose of which is to supposedly disseminate Maharishi's wisdom (second-hand though it may be) to those who could benefit from it, could be or should ever be conceived of as only for those we deem worthy of it? And then having that concept *enforced*? I mean, this is spiritual
[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: They weren't intended as sources per se, but as examples. Fortunately such examples exist, because there's much that cannot be spoken of due to vows. Okay. Well, there is a dark side to such beliefs and one is that molestations and criminal behavior can go on unreported. Satya Sai Baba is a great example. So is Swami Rama for that matter. So for situations like this HH the Dalai Lama says when a practioner is involved in such egregious behavior, it needs to be made known via the media. Well, agreed. Still, its a good thing to keep in mind on a more general basis. This applies to religions in general, but of course I have my own preferences. It also applies to TMers here for me, even though I might get sarcastic at times. But then this is a forum dedicated to a critical view of TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
Judy, this is an example of Buck piling onto his own comments in a progression as his thoughts develop over a course of several days. I just want to point this out as another example of self-commenting, where I don't really see any attempt at manipulation. I do think that Buck is giving us some valuable information about the internal workings of the movement at present. As I also have, occasionally, other sources of information, my feeling is that his assessments are quite correct. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: The TM-conservative element inside evidently has the stronger hand over the progressive TM'ers. The progressives get tolerated as much as they are in that they are productive at teaching TM through Hagelin's work over with David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is interesting in this because his works are extra-territorial in his foundation. Lynch does not have to go through Bevan so much; yet, Hagelin can't just do things by himself without bringing the TM0 conservatives along. So as you say, mode is in a range between membership that is practitioner-client based on the one hand and discipleship-cult on the other. It's a good analysis. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the preservationists at all costs is really where the cult is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out as a client cult, that is to say, it was not based on membership, discipleship, but rather directed to the general public, you simply could sign up for courses. The same was true for Ayurveda, which did not require TM membership, and many other programs that followed. Now TM is more and more like a membership club, more like a traditional religion. Compare that 'badge' approach to, lets say Ammachi, Karunamayi, Mother Meera and others, where anyone can come, anyone has access. Now that openess is the new style. TM at it's time was new style, client centered, but has sort of regressed into more of a membership cult. The new thing in this time is something completely open, there are too many things out there, too many meditations which you can pick. Any kind of elitism will not work. People select from different sources and pick what suits them best. And that is how it should be. And for me, openness, like open source is a precondition. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Sounds really good - glad you were able to go. Yep, I have to thank Raja John Hagelin for granting me an exemption to attend the meeting. It was very nice .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearless—and evidently unanswerable—in challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminating—and culturally attuned—in their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherent—and it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charming—and terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a person—no matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death in the FFL family last night. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. I am sure, though, his absence from FFL will be quite a relief to certain posters who came under his inspired scrutiny—That is, especially those posters who knew they would make matters worse if they attempted to answer him. And so they didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? Raised hand here: Yes I do! For example, after this whole episode, when he used to send sidhas to spots of world crisis, like a 'fire-police', and after this whole thing with the Iran failed big time, he said, how could we have got into this thinking? We like to prevent, not play fire police. He quite obviously wondered aloud, for anyone to hear in the lecture hall about his own mistake of sending groups abroad, announcing that there would only be 'remote-control' action from now on. Saying this, I admit that Maharishi, like almost all orientals, does not like to admit mistakes. At least not in public. In dealing with orientals, you always led the other side save its face.They understand mistakes, but they don't like to admit it directly. They have a lot of subtle ways of admitting. It's the whole point of orientals, that their whole way of communication, dealing with each other, is so completely different from ours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? Raised hand here: Yes I do! For example, after this whole episode, when he used to send sidhas to spots of world crisis, like a 'fire-police', and after this whole thing with the Iran failed big time, he said, how could we have got into this thinking? We like to prevent, not play fire police. He quite obviously wondered aloud, for anyone to hear in the lecture hall about his own mistake of sending groups abroad, announcing that there would only be 'remote-control' action from now on. Cool. I was pretty much gone by 1978, so I never heard any of these moments, or don't remember them. The whole small groups of us can save the world thang was after my time. Saying this, I admit that Maharishi, like almost all orientals, does not like to admit mistakes. At least not in public. In dealing with orientals, you always led the other side save its face.They understand mistakes, but they don't like to admit it directly. They have a lot of subtle ways of admitting. It's the whole point of orientals, that their whole way of communication, dealing with each other, is so completely different from ours. That's true, and a valuable POV on the subject. I have not personally interacted with a lot of Indians except in work situations, but I can certainly see what you're talking about among the Japanese. I used to study martial arts in primarily Japanese settings, and got to know many of my instructors and their families. In retrospect, this tendency to save face in order to preserve the wa (maintain a generally- accepted level of civility and peace) was very much in evidence. So what does the *opposite* of this allow the other person to save face mindset say about people for whom it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming back to the subject of my post, what is the point of winning in a discussion, such that one feels that the conversation somehow wasn't complete if the other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her mea culpas? What's up with that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
Well, if I want to see myself smile, I just look into the mirror and turn my head upside down. :-(-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: Well, if I want to see myself smile, I just look into the mirror and turn my head upside down. :-(-: I practice random acts of weirdness. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/c97e8d808a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking. I will check out the TED talk - sounds interesting. I read some years ago that the act of physically smiling does change brain chemistry and makes you feel better - maybe this is the researcher who did that work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: So what does the *opposite* of this allow the other person to save face mindset say about people for whom it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming back to the subject of my post, what is the point of winning in a discussion, such that one feels that the conversation somehow wasn't complete if the other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her mea culpas? What's up with that? I don't know. It's a game maybe. People argue, here and everywhere. It probably has to do with the common need of people to be achnowledged, a general need for confirmation. In friendship relations, people present their POV to be accepted, to get a confirmation, that they are 'right', that they belong to the group. Or else its genetically programmed, we want to win, we want to be better, no idea. In the TM context its probably a kind of mutual confirmation that you are doing the right thing, or even a demonstration, that you belong to the group. Somebody attacks your group, you defend it, flash your teeth, a sort of confirmation ritual. In the more historical context, Shankara, Nagarjuna and others, it was a specific culture of intellectual combats. It would be a means to test how your theories are logically sound, a means to actually train your intellect, to be able to present what you think in an intellectual meaningful way. And to elaborate pros and cons of a given issue. It's like little dogs bite, just to train their teeth. It's keeping your synaptic gaps active. I personally see it as the later, a way to train yourself, and explore different avenues of a topic.
[FairfieldLife] Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
This is very interesting to me also Barry. I've been doing some research on laughing yoga with similar positive results. Our neurology can be trigger from either direction, inner or outer with similar physical effects. Check out some of the youtubes on laughing yoga they are a real hoot. It is something I never would have considered in the past but for some reason seems to hit me right now. I am considering adding it to one of my educational seminars on humor and learning for teachers as a state change ice breaker. There is some statistic that kids laugh over a hundred times a day and adults may not even hit 10. I make myself laugh from looking at things funny many times day but it is interesting how content free the experience can also be. It has some profound implications for our often humorless classrooms. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
Happy Birthday Barry !!! From: Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Today is Barry Wright's Birthday Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now’s your chance to shower him with love and kisses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. * http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://seeinnerbeauty.files.wordpres\ s.com/2011/07/smile.jpgimgrefurl=http://seeinnerbeauty.wordpress.com/20\ 11/07/09/beauty-begins-with-a-smile/usg=__bgagtay4HwUXbBzwqnimrYXqGpA=\ h=960w=1280sz=84hl=destart=11zoom=1tbnid=XKG69zxuhNdf7M:tbnh=113\ tbnw=150ei=mbLkTtiFLJHFtAaJvsXICQprev=/search%3Fq%3Dsmile%26hl%3Dde%26\ sa%3DX%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D394%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvnsitbs=1 Wishing you many smiles in the new year.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
Ah, that would be retribution from realityreality having inspired BP to unsubscribedirected, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bobit's just that we didn't realize what would happen if wein some measure excessivelyturned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâand evidently unanswerableâin challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâand culturally attunedâin their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâand it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâand terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personâno matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death in the FFL family last night. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. I am sure, though, his absence from FFL will be quite a relief to certain posters who came under his inspired scrutinyâThat is, especially those posters who knew they would make matters worse if they attempted to answer him. And so they didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: So what does the *opposite* of this allow the other person to save face mindset say about people for whom it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming back to the subject of my post, what is the point of winning in a discussion, such that one feels that the conversation somehow wasn't complete if the other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her mea culpas? What's up with that? I don't know. It's a game maybe. People argue, here and everywhere. It probably has to do with the common need of people to be achnowledged, a general need for confirmation. In friendship relations, people present their POV to be accepted, to get a confirmation, that they are 'right', that they belong to the group. Or else its genetically programmed, we want to win, we want to be better, no idea. In the TM context its probably a kind of mutual confirmation that you are doing the right thing, or even a demonstration, that you belong to the group. Somebody attacks your group, you defend it, flash your teeth, a sort of confirmation ritual. Excellent points. Possibly a lot like you, I have been away from groups so long that I don't really identify with that wanting to fit in mindset any more. I'm a bit of a loner, and enjoy life that way. In the more historical context, Shankara, Nagarjuna and others, it was a specific culture of intellectual combats. It would be a means to test how your theories are logically sound, a means to actually train your intellect, to be able to present what you think in an intellectual meaningful way. And to elaborate pros and cons of a given issue. It's like little dogs bite, just to train their teeth. It's keeping your synaptic gaps active. I personally see it as the later, a way to train yourself, and explore different avenues of a topic. Excellent points again. And believe me, I understand the throw your ideas against the Internet refrigerator to see if they stick approach. I pursued it myself for many years. I probably argued as doggedly -- and as stupidly -- as anyone here. It's just that I've tired of that lately. A lot of that intellectual combat interaction was, in retrospect, during a period for me of walking away from multiple cults, and trying to sort things out for myself in my head. I think I'm a little farther along now, in that I don't really see any need to sort things out such that I think that what I come up with is any kind of truth, or even true for anyone but myself. I spout opinion, cuz that's all I got. :-) But clearly not everyone sees things this way. You keep hearing things that reek of Poster X has no balls because he/she won't 'take me on' and debate things ad infinitum with me until one of us 'wins' on this forum. For me -- these days -- that's just so Been There Done That. Ho hum. Boring. If they feel so attached to their views that they feel the need to prosyletize and debate them, well...whatever floats their boat. I don't have to come aboard. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
Robin - thank you for kind comments and the clarifications. Yes, that makes sense - Reality's retribution, I'm hoping he will return to FFL soon. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:43:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL Ah, that would be retribution from reality—reality having inspired BP to unsubscribe—directed, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bob—it's just that we didn't realize what would happen if we—in some measure excessively—turned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâ€and evidently unanswerableâ€in challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâ€and culturally attunedâ€in their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâ€and it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâ€and terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personâ€no matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death in the FFL family last night. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. I am sure, though, his absence from FFL will be quite a relief to certain posters who came under his inspired scrutinyâ€That is, especially those posters who knew they would make matters worse if they attempted to answer him. And so they didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-) Happy soon to be Birthday! Love and kisses, you Dhanu Surya. No wonder I like you, you say it like it is (in your head) and are most likely giggling as you type. : )
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: This is very interesting to me also Barry. I've been doing some research on laughing yoga with similar positive results. Our neurology can be trigger from either direction, inner or outer with similar physical effects. Check out some of the youtubes on laughing yoga they are a real hoot. It is something I never would have considered in the past but for some reason seems to hit me right now. I am considering adding it to one of my educational seminars on humor and learning for teachers as a state change ice breaker. There is some statistic that kids laugh over a hundred times a day and adults may not even hit 10. I make myself laugh from looking at things funny many times day but it is interesting how content free the experience can also be. It has some profound implications for our often humorless classrooms. Great stuff, Curtis. What situation -- especially education -- could *not* be improved by the judicious use of humor? I just *love* your phrase state change ice breaker. That's great. That's what truly funny people DO for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyjjD-D70ic --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Yogi's unconditional apology to raunchydog
Dear Steve, Thank you and thanks for previous email that you were no longer angry on me. But your mind is very quick to change, I'm guessing that by the time you get to read this message - you are most likely mad on me again. No worries because I like this game :-). Love - Ravi. From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 10, 2011 5:31:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Yogi's unconditional apology to raunchydog --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Bob if you were to declare that you have become a bisexual, and it was OK with the wife for you to have a lover - I will be your bitch for this lifetime. It took awhile, but finally you are talking some sense. Welcome to the civilized world. (-:
[FairfieldLife] Doctor Oz’s exclusive interview with Oprah
An Oz Exclusive: Oprah Winfrey, Pt 7 http://www.doc toroz.com/videos/oz- exclusive-oprah-winf rey-pt-7
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
And get this, folks: He *means* it. No; take that in. Ravi Chivukula is absolutely sincere when he says this. If you really understand and accept the truth of what I am saying here, you will realize that Ravi *cannot* offend anyone, because, although I reject the truth of his Hindu awakening, he is without internal violence and hatred altogether. No one that I know could say, with a straight facebut inwardly in his heart as well Happy Birthday Barry!!! given BW's traditional reaction to, and contempt for, Ravi Chivukula. This is an utterly ingenuous comment This is the secret (or at least one secret) of Ravi Chivukula. He lives in the grace of his sincerity. Yes, even when he wrote what he wrote to that lover of LG raunchydog. Ravi is madand I believe, deceivedbut he is original, and it behoves us to comprehend him. I am making it my life's workif I may be permitted a little hyperbole. Ravi certainly has my attention. And I think of how wrong I got him in the beginningwhen he came after me. He's a good guy: no fakery in that video of him chanting, singing. But I contend this one act of Ravi saying Happy Birthday to Barryand meaning itdefines and explains who Ravi Chivukula is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Happy Birthday Barry !!! From: Rick Archer rick@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:25:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Today is Barry Wright's Birthday Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Nowâs your chance to shower him with love and kisses.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
I truly understand the soul of Bob Price too. He was my husband (one of them) in my past life, not including this life, because he has the best wife he could have in this time (he has evolved a bit more than when I was with him, so he got a better model this time around.). Bob Price has the heart of gold. Gold winner of the Indian Bollywood/Indie Film Festival, nominated all categories, including Raj Ram weight in gold for distinguishing truth between Twinkies and Jaggery treats. Bob, please watch us from your screen and I can't wait to see you and Ravi on that project. My peeps will get a hold of your peeps. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Ah, that would be retribution from realityreality having inspired BP to unsubscribedirected, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bobit's just that we didn't realize what would happen if wein some measure excessivelyturned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâand evidently unanswerableâin challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâand culturally attunedâin their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâand it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâand terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personâno matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of turquoiseb Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-) My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Robin, you do realize each time you make these absolute pronouncements - or encyclicals - you end up retracting most of it? This is a very old pattern. It hasn't changed a wink. It would be nice to have seen you strike some sort of balance between old Robin and the allegedly new Robin. But the odd thing is, I don't see much of a new Robin, just old Robindranath the Bore with a thin, transparent veneer of heretical Catholicism. In many, many ways you differ little from a TM TB - except for the insistence that TM transcending somehow engenders and then delivers some deceitful, deva-engendered state of consciousness. On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:57 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear Ravi, I am going to do a Ravi on you! The way you approached raunchydog, Alex, Rick, Steve, Jim, even Judy (have I left anyone out?), I am going to approach *you*. Now of course I cannot imitate you—that would take an acting skill I doubt anyone has; but what I can do—see if you can understand this:—is *in being Robin towards you, essentially do what you attempted to do with these various persons*. I am going to use the Ravi technique of confrontation. I think I followed you quite acutely—even metaphysically—in each of these controversial and incendiary posts. I aim to pull off addressing you what you were perhaps attempting to pull off addressing them. Now you must not mistake me here: I will be just as bold and audacious as you were; but at the same time—reading you as fairly as I can—I am going to try to produce a particular response/reaction in yourself which will be like the one you provoked, say, in—to take two examples—Rick and raunchydog, although only the latter actually spent energy and intelligence on getting back at you. Now I don't know how you will respond to this Ravi experiment performed through Robin, but I can assure you it will be interesting. And you will have to assume that I am being absolutely sincere; even if you—and I suppose almost every FFL reader—will not go along in the least with what I am saying. It will be, then, a kind of *performance*, but I shall stay in contact with whatever muses inspire me, for if I lose this inspiration the whole exercise will just fall flat. I aim to keep my performance going from beginning to end. But this is a warning: you will not get what you expect, what you could even imagine. And I think this was the experience that *some* of these other persons got when they received their posts from you. So, then, Ravi, consider me an honourable person with the very best of motives. I don't pretend I am going to persuade you of the 'truth' of what I am about to do; that is not what I am about here. Certainly I will write what I feel is true; however my intention will be to precipitate in you something uncontrollable reactive, something, then, which bypasses every defence you have; even trangresses ultimate taboos—something I know you are very familiar with in your violent rhapsodies here at FFL. You claim to act, in some fundamental way, out of love. Permit me the same unspoken premise. I will act of out of love here, or at least out of the deepest of my convictions; but *not*, I emphasize *not*, out of some desire to clarify myself intellectually. Remember, Ravi: this is a performance—as I believe your various posts were. You found yourself moving in on each person and you elicited, I believe, exactly the response you anticipated you would. So, now you must prepare (and even the gentle readers of FFL must prepare) for a radical and outrageous and trangressive performance. There. Are you ready, Ravi? I hope so, because once I begin, in order for this experiment to 'work' you have to keep reading to the very end. And I should say right at the outset: *I am going to improvise my way into this and right through to its conclusion*. Now remember (this is *very* important): my intent is not to edify or persuade or argue *through content*; my ambition is to employ a certain dramatic mode of ambush which, in some way—at the level of principle at least—is the same as what you do—and even what you did to me when I first came onto FFL. Most readers at FFL will not like what I have to say. But they should recollect: I am in the act of performing with Ravi as my audience. I am not aspiring to make myself understood or even reasonable. The sweeping generalizations which I am about to make will offend. But it must be remembered: I want to shock. Ready, Ravi? I am starting right now. Your video tape disproves entirely and absolutely the primacy of the existence the beloved, your 'realization', your spiritual mystical experience. I don't say that you do not experience that you have gone into another state of consciousness, that your sense of the holiness of what has happened to you isn't true. I just say that it is essentially irrelevant to the business, the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Robin - thank you for kind comments and the clarifications. Yes, that makes sense - Reality's retribution, I'm hoping he will return to FFL soon. Me too, Ravi. I feel like a home wrecker in the middle of a divorce. I'll miss him for all the reasons Robin so eloquently expressed. http://youtu.be/UnTeTYKA3gU From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:43:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL Ah, that would be retribution from realityâreality having inspired BP to unsubscribeâdirected, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bobâit's just that we didn't realize what would happen if weâin some measure excessivelyâturned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessââ¬and evidently unanswerableââ¬in challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingââ¬and culturally attunedââ¬in their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentââ¬and it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingââ¬and terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personââ¬no matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: On Behalf Of turquoiseb --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-) My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.) The 18th. And if the end of the world occurs within three days of my birthday, you may rest assured that I am going to take credit for it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. RESPONSE: Love, maybe. But kisses? That is where I draw the line in what Baby Jesus would ask of me on this day of judging the purity and heroism of my soul. Ah, Barry, my boy: it really is your birthday then? Well, I missed out in reading your post [extolling the virtues of pleasant conversation] that the universe was celebrating another anniversary of your emergence from that loving womb of your mother. But it was, and it is. A failure of sensitivity revealed there. I should have known it was your birthday. Now that I do, of course, I *can* feel creation sending your soul some grace. And I get to participate in that grace by recognizing towards whom it is being directed. And I, like thousands of others on this day, *do* wish you a Happy Birthday. Here is my Robin version of what Ravi said. I am going to wait and see, as I write the words, what comes through in my experience: Happy Birthday, Barry. Pretty good, I'd say. Everything I have posted in response to you, Barry, has been good. Every post has been a Happy Birthday. But you have to go down pretty deep to get this, I suppose. Whether you believe this or not, there *is* some grace there, so my words have something a little different about them in how they play today in your presence. Think about this, Birthday Boy: When you go to post, imagine it is a Bruce Coburn lyric. Imagine every act of yours being a Bruce Coburn song. Why not? There are persons in the worldI know of one in particularwhom you like, respect, perhaps even love. You must not contradict that love in your aversion to other persons who do not spontaneously create such a good feeling inside of you. You should bring that love into even the act of responding to your enemy. Happy Birthday, Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.) Don't change the computer Rick, just argue with Barry that you know better than he does when his birthday is until he changes it. From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of turquoiseb Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-) My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
Home wrecker..ha..ha, thanks Raunchy, he is mad that I didn't support him enough, so he is actually mad on me but he will be back. From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 6:17:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Robin - thank you for kind comments and the clarifications. Yes, that makes sense - Reality's retribution, I'm hoping he will return to FFL soon. Me too, Ravi. I feel like a home wrecker in the middle of a divorce. I'll miss him for all the reasons Robin so eloquently expressed. http://youtu.be/UnTeTYKA3gU From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:43:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL Ah, that would be retribution from realityâ€reality having inspired BP to unsubscribeâ€directed, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bobâ€it's just that we didn't realize what would happen if weâ€in some measure excessivelyâ€turned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâ€and evidently unanswerableâ€in challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâ€and culturally attunedâ€in their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâ€and it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâ€and terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personâ€no matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
Oh, now I know what mood-making is. I imagined a grace that wasn't even therebecause Rick told me it was Barry's birthday. So I need not have gone through that crucifixion of my pride; I could have just continued to hate Barry's guts. Good. That feels better to have killed off the birthday context and returned to the much more accustomed feeling: That Barry Wright guy from Amsterdam: he no good. However, it was salutary to remind me: Yes, Robin: even Barry Wright has birthdays. And I had better be prepared for it. This was an excellent and necessary rehearsal. Please get it right next time, Rick. And by the way, there is a pretty big (Western) birthday coming up. Why is there some feeling of happiness, particularly right up until noon on the 25th? How come we don't celebrate Krishna's birthday? Or that lovely Mohammed guy? Creation still celebrates the birthday of Christand he, as far as I can tell, is dead. But his birthday lives. Sorry, I am going to break this off here, folks. What is observed to be in something by participation must necessarily be caused there by that to which it belongs essentially, as when iron is made red-hot by fire. God is his very existence, moreover such subsisting existence cannot but be unique. Consequently all things other than God are not their existence, but share in existence. Things diversified by different degrees of existence, so as to be more or less perfect, must be caused by one first and most perfect being. The December 25th Birthday Boy dictated these words to a real Thomas. There was no 'wisp of smoke either; only a crucifix which spoke. Hinduism, meanwhile, livesand so does Krishna. Oh, sorry, Barry: I am inside one of your posts. Hi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Facebook Help
I haven't been able to access my Facebook account for two days. Has this happened to anyone else? Is Big Brother coming after me because I post political stuff? I'm completely locked out using my desktop PC. An ipad in my house with a different Facebook account can access Facebook using the router WiFi to my desktop. Facebook Account Temporarily Unavailable Your account is currently unavailable due to a site issue. We expect this to be resolved shortly. Please try again in a few minutes. http://www.facebook.com/sorry.php?msg=account
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I'll work on this, Vaj. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Robin, you do realize each time you make these absolute pronouncements - or encyclicals - you end up retracting most of it? This is a very old pattern. It hasn't changed a wink. It would be nice to have seen you strike some sort of balance between old Robin and the allegedly new Robin. But the odd thing is, I don't see much of a new Robin, just old Robindranath the Bore with a thin, transparent veneer of heretical Catholicism. In many, many ways you differ little from a TM TB - except for the insistence that TM transcending somehow engenders and then delivers some deceitful, deva-engendered state of consciousness. On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:57 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear Ravi, I am going to do a Ravi on you! The way you approached raunchydog, Alex, Rick, Steve, Jim, even Judy (have I left anyone out?), I am going to approach *you*. Now of course I cannot imitate youthat would take an acting skill I doubt anyone has; but what I can dosee if you can understand this:is *in being Robin towards you, essentially do what you attempted to do with these various persons*. I am going to use the Ravi technique of confrontation. I think I followed you quite acutelyeven metaphysicallyin each of these controversial and incendiary posts. I aim to pull off addressing you what you were perhaps attempting to pull off addressing them. Now you must not mistake me here: I will be just as bold and audacious as you were; but at the same timereading you as fairly as I canI am going to try to produce a particular response/reaction in yourself which will be like the one you provoked, say, into take two examplesRick and raunchydog, although only the latter actually spent energy and intelligence on getting back at you. Now I don't know how you will respond to this Ravi experiment performed through Robin, but I can assure you it will be interesting. And you will have to assume that I am being absolutely sincere; even if youand I suppose almost every FFL readerwill not go along in the least with what I am saying. It will be, then, a kind of *performance*, but I shall stay in contact with whatever muses inspire me, for if I lose this inspiration the whole exercise will just fall flat. I aim to keep my performance going from beginning to end. But this is a warning: you will not get what you expect, what you could even imagine. And I think this was the experience that *some* of these other persons got when they received their posts from you. So, then, Ravi, consider me an honourable person with the very best of motives. I don't pretend I am going to persuade you of the 'truth' of what I am about to do; that is not what I am about here. Certainly I will write what I feel is true; however my intention will be to precipitate in you something uncontrollable reactive, something, then, which bypasses every defence you have; even trangresses ultimate taboossomething I know you are very familiar with in your violent rhapsodies here at FFL. You claim to act, in some fundamental way, out of love. Permit me the same unspoken premise. I will act of out of love here, or at least out of the deepest of my convictions; but *not*, I emphasize *not*, out of some desire to clarify myself intellectually. Remember, Ravi: this is a performanceas I believe your various posts were. You found yourself moving in on each person and you elicited, I believe, exactly the response you anticipated you would. So, now you must prepare (and even the gentle readers of FFL must prepare) for a radical and outrageous and trangressive performance. There. Are you ready, Ravi? I hope so, because once I begin, in order for this experiment to 'work' you have to keep reading to the very end. And I should say right at the outset: *I am going to improvise my way into this and right through to its conclusion*. Now remember (this is *very* important): my intent is not to edify or persuade or argue *through content*; my ambition is to employ a certain dramatic mode of ambush which, in some wayat the level of principle at leastis the same as what you doand even what you did to me when I first came onto FFL. Most readers at FFL will not like what I have to say. But they should recollect: I am in the act of performing with Ravi as my audience. I am not aspiring to make myself understood or even reasonable. The sweeping generalizations which I am about to make will offend. But it must be remembered: I want to shock. Ready, Ravi? I am starting right now. Your video tape disproves entirely and absolutely the primacy of the existence the beloved, your 'realization', your spiritual mystical experience. I don't say that you do not experience that you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey Lawson: On Nov 26, 2011, at 2:04 AM, sparaig wrote: ONe of the more recent (15th? 14th? century) upanishads describes yogic flying in the stages that MMY does. I assume he was quoting it. Please: which Upanishad makes this (heretical) claim? At least Yoga-tattva-upanishad! Which heretical claim would that be? Lawson didn't describe any claims. You seem to have read that into what he wrote. The Shankaracharya trad. is very, very clear on this: yogic flying cultivation is anathema for brahmi-chetana (Unity Consciousness). WTF? I've heard that masturbating will make you go blind and will cause hair to grow on your palms. It's also my understanding that the Church holds it to be a mortal sin. If you don't stop, you'll go to Hell. I missed this assertion above. I would agree with it insomuch as performance of the sidhis is always a barrier to samadhi. Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! Well, actual success with a sidhi, whether its twitching, hopping, or full-blown floating, is quite distracting. To even be aware OF the flavor of the sidhi means that you are no longer in samadhi, even if samadhi is inherent in the success. --- But, as I have said before, it is an obstacle in the same way that a confidence course is an obstacle. Something that makes you stronger as you overcome it. At some point, it is certainly obvious that benefits from practicing the sidhis reach a point of diminishing returns, but my own intuition says that that point is reached when you perfect the sidhis, and not before. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: I'll work on this, Vaj. Thanks. Good one, Robin. LOL http://youtu.be/1C3XNDyVXRg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Robin, you do realize each time you make these absolute pronouncements - or encyclicals - you end up retracting most of it? This is a very old pattern. It hasn't changed a wink. It would be nice to have seen you strike some sort of balance between old Robin and the allegedly new Robin. But the odd thing is, I don't see much of a new Robin, just old Robindranath the Bore with a thin, transparent veneer of heretical Catholicism. In many, many ways you differ little from a TM TB - except for the insistence that TM transcending somehow engenders and then delivers some deceitful, deva-engendered state of consciousness. On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:57 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear Ravi, I am going to do a Ravi on you! The way you approached raunchydog, Alex, Rick, Steve, Jim, even Judy (have I left anyone out?), I am going to approach *you*. Now of course I cannot imitate youthat would take an acting skill I doubt anyone has; but what I can dosee if you can understand this:is *in being Robin towards you, essentially do what you attempted to do with these various persons*. I am going to use the Ravi technique of confrontation. I think I followed you quite acutelyeven metaphysicallyin each of these controversial and incendiary posts. I aim to pull off addressing you what you were perhaps attempting to pull off addressing them. Now you must not mistake me here: I will be just as bold and audacious as you were; but at the same timereading you as fairly as I canI am going to try to produce a particular response/reaction in yourself which will be like the one you provoked, say, into take two examplesRick and raunchydog, although only the latter actually spent energy and intelligence on getting back at you. Now I don't know how you will respond to this Ravi experiment performed through Robin, but I can assure you it will be interesting. And you will have to assume that I am being absolutely sincere; even if youand I suppose almost every FFL readerwill not go along in the least with what I am saying. It will be, then, a kind of *performance*, but I shall stay in contact with whatever muses inspire me, for if I lose this inspiration the whole exercise will just fall flat. I aim to keep my performance going from beginning to end. But this is a warning: you will not get what you expect, what you could even imagine. And I think this was the experience that *some* of these other persons got when they received their posts from you. So, then, Ravi, consider me an honourable person with the very best of motives. I don't pretend I am going to persuade you of the 'truth' of what I am about to do; that is not what I am about here. Certainly I will write what I feel is true; however my intention will be to precipitate in you something uncontrollable reactive, something, then, which bypasses every defence you have; even trangresses ultimate taboossomething I know you are very familiar with in your violent rhapsodies here at FFL. You claim to act, in some fundamental way, out of love. Permit me the same unspoken premise. I will act of out of love here, or at least out of the deepest of my convictions; but *not*, I emphasize *not*, out of some desire to clarify myself intellectually. Remember, Ravi: this is a performanceas I believe your various posts were. You found yourself moving in on each person and you elicited, I believe, exactly the response you anticipated you would. So, now you must prepare (and even the gentle readers of FFL must prepare) for a radical and outrageous and trangressive performance. There. Are you ready, Ravi? I hope so, because once I begin, in order for this experiment to 'work' you have to keep reading to the very end. And I should say right at the outset: *I am going to improvise my way into this and right through to its conclusion*. Now remember (this is *very* important): my intent is not to edify or persuade or argue *through content*; my ambition is to employ a certain dramatic mode of ambush which, in some wayat the level of principle at leastis the same as what you doand even what you did to me when I first came onto FFL. Most readers at FFL will not like what I have to say. But they should recollect: I am in the act of performing with Ravi as my audience. I am not aspiring to make myself understood or even reasonable. The sweeping generalizations which I am about to make will offend. But it must be remembered: I want to shock. Ready, Ravi? I am starting right
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
This is a winner!!! turquoiseb: Call me crazy, but I prefer -- both on the Internet and in real life -- having conversations with people whose definition of the word conversation does not include the word win. That's really how I see things. I participate in Inter- net chat forums to *chat*; that is, for the fun of just tossing ideas back and forth between people. I honestly don't think that any of my ideas are worth pushing on other people, or presenting as if they were some kind of truth. I have no clue as to truth. I don't even believe in the concept. I'm not even convinced about things being true. Pretty much the only thing that I'm convinced is true, at this point in my life, is that it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. And, of course, even that is not true. The sun no more rises than Hugh Hefner's dick does without Viagra. :-) So what I'm wondering is, Where does this compulsion to 'win' Internet discussions come from? With regard to TM, and this forum in particular, I think a lot of it comes from Maharishi. Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? But before that, I think we can trace this mindset back to Shankara, founder of the order and the philosophy that Maharishi...uh...borrowed from so extensively. *He* was a compulsive gotta win personality, and rose to whatever fame he achieved by holding debates all over India to prove that he was right and everybody else was wrong. You'll have to excuse my candor here, but WHAT A FUCKIN' WASTE OF LIFE! Life is so *cool*, man. There are infinite numbers of things to see and groove on presented to us every day. We will each see them and interpret them based on our own life experiences, and our own samskaras. And that's *OK* in my book. So why do so many seem to feel otherwise? Why do they tend to see every conversation-starter as the perfect opportunity for the argument I already have prepared, and was looking forward to having today? Seems like a waste of life to me. I prefer jackpotting ideas around with other more laissez-faire individuals, about things we mutually find interesting, even if only for the length of one conversation. That can be movies, or music, or some more spiritual topic, or even politics, if the other people can lighten up enough to laugh at it, as it should be laughed at. I honestly don't *understand* others' seemingly compulsive need to try to turn every exchange into a battle that they can win, even if only in their own minds. Can someone explain it to me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
The 18th, eh? I have marked it down in my calendar. Now I have time to prepare my mind and heart for this day. Providence, you see, works in wonderful ways: I now have two birthdays to look forward to: Barry's and Christ's. That seems somehow very fitting. The Christ one would have come as no surprise of course. But to have been informed on the very day that it was Barry Wright's birthday, that would have caught me by surprise, and I might just have felt the Scrooge contraction in my soul. As it is, I can now anticipate this moment before it is upon me, and thus find the required internal posture of appreciation (one of Maharshi's favourite wordsit was what was supposed to take you from CC to GC, remember?). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: On Behalf Of turquoiseb --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Thanks for the thought, Rick, but actually it's not. My birthday isn't until later this month. Still Sagg. :-) But people can shower me with love and kisses anyway if they want. Not that it's going to change what I write about and how I write it very much. :-) My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.) The 18th. And if the end of the world occurs within three days of my birthday, you may rest assured that I am going to take credit for it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: Judy, this is an example of Buck piling onto his own comments in a progression as his thoughts develop over a course of several days. I just want to point this out as another example of self-commenting, where I don't really see any attempt at manipulation. I don't see any attempt at manipulation in this sequence either. It's the one- or two-sentence-per-post deals one right after another, in which each post is just a continuation of a single train of thought rather than an expansion/elaboration of a previous one, that bug me. Many of us from time to time will have second thoughts and comment on one of our previous posts. Also, in this case, something happened between his second and third posts in the series: he went through a badge-application interview and was reporting back to you on that, so that accounts for one instance of the piggybacking. I do think that Buck is giving us some valuable information about the internal workings of the movement at present. Most assuredly. Your insights are valuable as well. May I ask about your TM background? How did you get here? Just curious; no need to respond if you're not so inclined. As I also have, occasionally, other sources of information, my feeling is that his assessments are quite correct. I don't have any other sources, but I have no reason to think that we're being misled. I do wonder a bit, BTW, about his assertion that the TMO insiders all read and ponder FFL. So much of what goes on here isn't even remotely relevant to their concerns. One of them would have to go through and pick out only the posts of TMO interest and then circulate them to the others. Possible, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's all that likely. When has the conservative element, in particular, in the TMO ever cared about what a bunch of renegades think? What's your assessment on that score? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: The TM-conservative element inside evidently has the stronger hand over the progressive TM'ers. The progressives get tolerated as much as they are in that they are productive at teaching TM through Hagelin's work over with David Lynch Foundation. Lynch is interesting in this because his works are extra-territorial in his foundation. Lynch does not have to go through Bevan so much; yet, Hagelin can't just do things by himself without bringing the TM0 conservatives along. So as you say, mode is in a range between membership that is practitioner-client based on the one hand and discipleship-cult on the other. It's a good analysis. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786, I have just come through a long and arduous interview probing process in re-applying for a dome badge. Much of the consideration was around this client-centered vs. membership-cult as you frame it. It was very much around the difference between client practitioners and membership devotee types. That is a fair distinction within TM. On the one hand we got some more progressive people who tend to be more over in the Hagelin camp who would like to see it work out for practitioners, while on the other hand are the more strict preservationists around Bevan. Some of these later conservatives are like the Taliban in that they are ruthless in their position. The progressives are more sympathetic towards working it out for practitioner-clients. Right now the Bevan-ista doctrinaire disciples have more power than the Hagelin-ites. -Buck Zarzari, they do play hardball at this and there is lots of yelling going on. A risk is that if anybody wanting/needing to be on the inside would really persuasively argue for progressive change in the movement guidelines along the lines of a client-centered hosting as you describe, the Bevan-istas could just pack the bags of those people and 'out' them. There is still a web of dependence this way that gets pulled. Within this the preservationists at all costs is really where the cult is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Zarzari786 excellent critique here. And, welcome too to FFL. Fairfieldlife is proly the best place to give input to the TMO from the outside as it does get read and digested by everybody inside. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: Hi all, I couldn't agree more with what you say here. If Adiraj, Maharaj, whatever is anything close to a Maharishi successor, he should go out and make a lecture tour about TM, or whatever they think they have to offer. He should be able to publicly stand for the program, embody it to everyone. This is what the Maharishi did. TM started out
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: This is very interesting to me also Barry. I've been doing some research on laughing yoga with similar positive results. Our neurology can be trigger from either direction, inner or outer with similar physical effects. Check out some of the youtubes on laughing yoga they are a real hoot. It is something I never would have considered in the past but for some reason seems to hit me right now. I am considering adding it to one of my educational seminars on humor and learning for teachers as a state change ice breaker. There is some statistic that kids laugh over a hundred times a day and adults may not even hit 10. I make myself laugh from looking at things funny many times day but it is interesting how content free the experience can also be. It has some profound implications for our often humorless classrooms. Even forced laughter is said to have positive effects, according to ayurveda. One of Chopra's exercises from the good ole days was to use different syllables to produce specific beneficial effects. Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, over and over again for 30 seconds or a minute (?) or so, was thought to help alleviate stomach troubles. Humming a vocalized loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate earaches. Humming a vocalized mmm loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate sinus issues. There's an entire tradition that relates every syllable in sanskrit to some part of the body in some therapeutic way. I don't recall which syllable relates to the knee, but apparently tradition holds that there is one. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain.  So are you saying that those talked about upper layers don't exist?  I ask because I had some work done a few months ago to repair my spiritual grid - ostensibly above me, but maybe not. The original context was in discussing the merits of doing Western physiological studies on the effects of meditation. My own belief is that regardless of how subtle the body is that you are talking about, it is STILL a physical body in some sense in that it isn't pure consciousness, so the basic point holds: if you can talk about a structure to consciousness beyond the most fundamental rishi-devatas-chhandas samhita, there needs to be SOME kind of physical structure associated with it, even if it is comprised entirely of consciousness-stuff. And, as one deals with more and more elaborate structures, one gets closer and closer to what Western Science calls physical. L. From: sparaig LEnglish5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 8:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology  one of my favorite quotes from MMY: Spiritual and Material Values Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable. -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@ wrote: Bhairitu: It is a conditioning of the nervous system. Enlightenment doesn't have anything to do with the human nervous system. If it did, we could see it and measure it and replicate it. The enlightened state is a state of mind; a state where we percieve reality as it really is. Enlightenment is a mental state - there is no change in the physical body. Enlightenment is a metaphysical state. The historical buddha is said to have attained enlightenment, but he had a bad back until the day he passed away. Enlightenment ...is the state of residing in such great understanding and depth, that no matter what life throws your way, you are at peace with it, you are able to say, That's OK, no problem. - Zen Buddhist Master Charlotte Joko Beck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
This should be discussed separately... Has anyone ever explained to the saints that visit Fairfield that the issue exists, and why it exists in the first place? I have a funny feeling that a lot of the visiting saints would be very incensed with the people who invite them to Fairfield if they learned that they were at the heart of the controversy without being informed of the whole story... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: [...] People seem to forget that the original reason to ban dealing with other teachers was Robin Carlsen's antics. My own belief is that a large portion of the saints that visit Fairfield, if they understood the history and reasons behind the ban, would be sympathetic to the ban and actually stop visiting Fairfield. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: snip Even forced laughter is said to have positive effects, according to ayurveda. One of Chopra's exercises from the good ole days was to use different syllables to produce specific beneficial effects. Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, over and over again for 30 seconds or a minute (?) or so, was thought to help alleviate stomach troubles. Humming a vocalized loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate earaches. Humming a vocalized mmm loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate sinus issues. But these would be purely physical effects, not due to any mystical resonance woowoo, no? I mean, it's easy to see how Ha-ha-ha etc. would massage the stomach and trigger a belch to relieve gas, simply because it moves the diaphragm in and out repeatedly. And Mmm and Nnn would set up vibrations throughout the structures of the skull that might break up phlegm or stimulate fluid to drain from the eustachian tubes. There's an entire tradition that relates every syllable in sanskrit to some part of the body in some therapeutic way. I don't recall which syllable relates to the knee, but apparently tradition holds that there is one. A percussive sound that impacts the patellar tendon, perhaps?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Well, there is a dark side to such beliefs and one is that molestations and criminal behavior can go on unreported. Satya Sai Baba is a great example. So is Swami Rama for that matter. So for situations like this HH the Dalai Lama says when a practioner is involved in such egregious behavior, it needs to be made known via the media. Well, agreed. Still, its a good thing to keep in mind on a more general basis. This applies to religions in general, but of course I have my own preferences. It also applies to TMers here for me, even though I might get sarcastic at times. But then this is a forum dedicated to a critical view of TM. Indeed. You can therefore be sure that any TMers who have hung around here for any length of time have developed very thick skins. Or they're masochists. Either way, you don't really need to worry about being gentle with us. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:08 AM, sparaig wrote: There's an entire tradition that relates every syllable in sanskrit to some part of the body in some therapeutic way. I don't recall which syllable relates to the knee, but apparently tradition holds that there is one. Cha-ching.
[FairfieldLife] Interesting series: a heretic in the Vatican
Fascinating (from my heretical point of view) series of articles by someone...uh...less than faithful who managed to talk himself into the Vatican. Try to imagine Curtis touring the joint. Just sayin'. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2011/vatican_inside_the_secret_city/vatican_guide_the_pope_s_pornographic_bathroom.html http://goo.gl/ibiw1 This article is the latest in the series. Its prede- cessors are under the ALL ENTRIES heading.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Your Facebook comment reminded of me of something else that as a techie you can probably relate to. I had to join Google docs for an art's education group I am in and was alarmed to notice that now all my google searches are linked to the name I used. WTF! Go to google.com and look in the upper right corner of the page. If you see that you are logged into the Google site with that ID, then all you have to do is sign out. Personally, I love that system. If I do a search from my cellphone, that search history also shows up in my computer's browser because I keep it logged into the same Google account. That makes it easier to redo searches from my computer, where the bigger screen and full-featured OS make web browsing a better experience than on my phone. I also use Google calendar to keep track of appointments, and I can access that from both my phone and my computer. If, for whatever reason, I want to do a web search and not have it associated with my Google ID, I can either do it from a different browser that isn't logged in (Firefox is logged in, Chrome is not) or I can do an anonymous search using Scroogle Scraper: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
[FairfieldLife] Search For Self Called Off After 38 Years. Hilarous Onion piece
Search For Self Called Off After 38 Years SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 | ISSUE 4137 CHICAGOThe longtime search for self conducted by area man Andrew Speth was called off this week, the 38-year-old said Monday. Speth sets out on a new life, moments after announcing the end of his search. I always thought that if I kept searching and exploring, I'd discover who I truly was, said Speth from his Wrigleyville efficiency. Well, I looked deep into the innermost recesses of my soul, I plumbed the depths of my subconscious, and you know what I found? An empty, windowless room the size of an aircraft hangar. From now on, if anybody needs me, I'll be sprawled out on this couch drinking black-cherry soda and watching Law Order like everybody else. Fuck it, he added. More: http://www.theonion.com/articles/search-for-self-called-off-after-38-years,1794/
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: About the Alexraunchygate scandal, it's simple, the existence wanted to run an experiment of the the utter invincibility yet the utter humanness of Ravi Chivukula. A demonstration if you might, the energy of unconditional hatred, the Kali energy where I slay someone and then use the unconditional love, the Durga energy to makeup. Obviously the rules for the enlightened are different. Sort of reminds you of figures you read about in history, and also see in the daily news. Where's Bob Price when we need him, so he can provide the right interpretation on the Ravi perspective?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
So, Bob is Ravi's bitch for the day (or the week). I got to be your bitch for the day on occassion, but then I got replaced. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâand evidently unanswerableâin challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâand culturally attunedâin their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâand it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâand terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to represent what is true and real. There will be readers (and posters) at FFL who no doubt will disagree with me (and think me a homer), but I am going on the record as saying that Bob Price was a prince of a personâno matter if he appeared in the hearts and minds of some persons here at FFL to have been somewhat offensive or uncharitable in his defence of Ravi. If he made a misstep in the opinion of certain posters at FFL, there was still, within even these posts, the evidence of someone trying to do justice to what he felt was the truth. And I will argue with anyone for the validity of this judgment of him. This sounds like an obituary/eulogy And if it does, then that just means there was a little death in the FFL family last night. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. I am sure, though, his absence from FFL will be quite a relief to certain posters who came under his inspired scrutinyâThat is, especially those posters who knew they would make matters worse if they attempted to answer him. And so they didn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thanks for the reply Alex. I guess I resent that I need to basically learn another software but without the kind of documentation that would make me confident that I am in control. They have a home court advantage on me. And thanks for the sign out tip. I am getting a bit paranoid because I don't understand enough about using the site. My other problem is that I don't trust what they do with the professional correspondence we have on that site. But with many educators using it perhaps I just need to get a book and learn how to minimize the damage to reap the rewards of the system. It isn't as if Google is going away anytime soon so I should come to grips with it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your Facebook comment reminded of me of something else that as a techie you can probably relate to. I had to join Google docs for an art's education group I am in and was alarmed to notice that now all my google searches are linked to the name I used. WTF! Go to google.com and look in the upper right corner of the page. If you see that you are logged into the Google site with that ID, then all you have to do is sign out. Personally, I love that system. If I do a search from my cellphone, that search history also shows up in my computer's browser because I keep it logged into the same Google account. That makes it easier to redo searches from my computer, where the bigger screen and full-featured OS make web browsing a better experience than on my phone. I also use Google calendar to keep track of appointments, and I can access that from both my phone and my computer. If, for whatever reason, I want to do a web search and not have it associated with my Google ID, I can either do it from a different browser that isn't logged in (Firefox is logged in, Chrome is not) or I can do an anonymous search using Scroogle Scraper: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Yogi's unconditional apology to raunchydog
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Dear Steve, Thank you and thanks for previous email that you were no longer angry on me. Well, in reality, the only time I felt any anger was anticipating that you were going to carry on with your tirade. But you backed down, and became more conciliatory. Up until that point, no anger. But your mind is very quick to change, I'm guessing that by the time you get to read this message - you are most likely mad on me again. No, not mad. Just kind of amused, really. No worries because I like this game :-). Ravi, do you feel you are prone to understatements? Love - Ravi. The only downside is that your version of reality may only make sense to you (and your beloved of course). But the rest of the world may just tend to dismiss you. Especially in light of the fact that we may just be variables in whatever Ravi experiment you may be running at a given time. Oh, well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: LOL..yes you did a reaction from me, didn't you dear Robin, fair enough, but a beautiful retort - yes let's continue this game, who knows we might be merely repeating old battles from the past !!! As always I loved every word of yours. I don't know why I get the feeling that you may soon be playing this game by yourself. Kind of like some of the players here, who post for mostly for their own edification, without much hope for a back and forth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Ravi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip I find the whole Saturday-Sunday meltdown thang revealing. Looks like this will be another week in which the crazies will all post out by Monday and we'll have the rest of the week to discuss things without all the drama and the grudge mentality. If you find the grudge mentality unappealing, might I suggest you refrain from constantly refreshing it by insulting the folks you don't like and, you know, calling them crazies? I thought there were a few good exchanges towards the end of last week. Prominent threads included: --How to dump a dick --Sattvic horror movies I'm looking forward to --The new Three Stooges And then there was the TM critics' entirely predictable feeding frenzy in the thread about the Vedic Physiology course. That was pretty funny: not just reasoned critique, but teeth-clenched, implacably grim determination to rip it apart, stomp on it, grind it into the dirt, eradicate any conceivable notion that the course might ever have the slightest possible positive effect on anybody, anywhere, under any circumstances. Call me crazy, but I prefer -- both on the Internet and in real life -- having conversations with people whose definition of the word conversation does not include the word win. Understandable why perpetual losers would shudder at the word.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: But the odd thing is, I don't see much of a new Robin, just old Robindranath the Bore with a thin, transparent veneer of heretical Catholicism. In many, many ways you differ little from a TM TB - except for the insistence that TM transcending somehow engenders and then delivers some deceitful, deva-engendered state of consciousness. Okay, one chuckle down. Minimum of nine to go.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: My computer misinformed me. What is the actual date, so I don't get it wrong again next year? (Next year we'll be only 10 days away from the end of the world.) Don't change the computer Rick, just argue with Barry that you know better than he does when his birthday is until he changes it. Two down, eight to go.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip The A of E and Chopra technique is a real departure from Maharishi's usual schtick. Can you imagine the initiator's answer to any question from another system that described this practice? It would get labeled superficial moodmaking before they were done describing it. Exactly. You nailed it again. As teachers, we were taught *explicitly* how to demonize such guided meditation techniques and present them as so, so, SO much less than the TM technique. As I remember, TM apologists on this forum (TM teachers or just wannabees) have done so as well. But I'm betting we'll hear hear nary a peep from any of them about the efficacy of this official new TMO product. Which is curious in a way, because this technique seems to me to be the very *antithesis* of the natural tendency of the mind aspect of TM. The whole point seems to be following what you are told to think about and where to put your focus, as opposed to TM's take it easy, take it as it comes approach. By releasing such a guided medi- tation, the TMO has effectively undercut its own PR and sales spiels about its primary product, TM. Uh, no. In the first place, as Curtis correctly notes (and Barry completely misses), it's hardly the first such technique taught in the TMO. Even the TM-Sidhis don't conform to the natural tendency of the mind approach. In the second place, it's an *ancillary* technique (as are the others) that would presumably be significantly less effective if one weren't also transcending regularly with TM. So it doesn't undercut a thing about TM per se. Barry and Curtis are grasping at straws. And they both know better. Caveat: I make no claims whatsoever for the Vedic Physiology course's effectiveness. I'm just calling attention to the fact that these guys are so painfully eager to diss it that they aren't thinking straight. My bet is that if, at some future time, the TMO powers-that-be introduce some technique that involves actual focus or concentration (as did many of the techniques that SBS actually taught), we'll hear a similar resounding silence from those who have vehe- mently decried such practices over the years. Notice how Barry courageously makes a bet about something he knows is vanishingly unlikely to happen. And if it *did* happen, it would blow away his repeated smug predictions that nothing new can ever come out of the TMO. But taking that bet on its own terms: If a concentration technique were introduced to *take the place* of plain-vanilla TM, you'd hear howls of outrage from here to Mars. If it were an *ancillary* technique, most likely not so much (assuming the explanation of how it was said to work were convincingly integrated with basic TM theory).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lhasa de Sela - Con toda palabra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Thanks to Merudanda for sending this singer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfEONLFFWyQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: I'll work on this, Vaj. Thanks. Good one, Robin. LOL Ditto. Another belly laugh. http://youtu.be/1C3XNDyVXRg Perfect! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Robin, you do realize each time you make these absolute pronouncements - or encyclicals - you end up retracting most of it? This is a very old pattern. It hasn't changed a wink. It would be nice to have seen you strike some sort of balance between old Robin and the allegedly new Robin. But the odd thing is, I don't see much of a new Robin, just old Robindranath the Bore with a thin, transparent veneer of heretical Catholicism. In many, many ways you differ little from a TM TB - except for the insistence that TM transcending somehow engenders and then delivers some deceitful, deva-engendered state of consciousness. On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:57 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Dear Ravi, I am going to do a Ravi on you! The way you approached
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
I agree that the first 3 examples are purely physical or at least could be. There's also always the possibility that some arbitrary syllable takes advantage of some hardwired connection in the brain so that vocalizing that sound will produce activity in the brain in close proximity to the related body part. Of course, both scenarios might apply in some cases, or perhaps there's a neural connection that is established simply because of the physical effects that you mention creating a pavlovian response in the nervous system. Or whatever. Shrugs elaborately. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip Even forced laughter is said to have positive effects, according to ayurveda. One of Chopra's exercises from the good ole days was to use different syllables to produce specific beneficial effects. Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, over and over again for 30 seconds or a minute (?) or so, was thought to help alleviate stomach troubles. Humming a vocalized loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate earaches. Humming a vocalized mmm loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate sinus issues. But these would be purely physical effects, not due to any mystical resonance woowoo, no? I mean, it's easy to see how Ha-ha-ha etc. would massage the stomach and trigger a belch to relieve gas, simply because it moves the diaphragm in and out repeatedly. And Mmm and Nnn would set up vibrations throughout the structures of the skull that might break up phlegm or stimulate fluid to drain from the eustachian tubes. There's an entire tradition that relates every syllable in sanskrit to some part of the body in some therapeutic way. I don't recall which syllable relates to the knee, but apparently tradition holds that there is one. A percussive sound that impacts the patellar tendon, perhaps?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lhasa de Sela - Con toda palabra
smile I watched that video several times. From: merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lhasa de Sela - Con toda palabra --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Thanks to Merudanda for sending this singer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfEONLFFWyQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Rama: Our Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Well, there is a dark side to such beliefs and one is that molestations and criminal behavior can go on unreported. Satya Sai Baba is a great example. So is Swami Rama for that matter. So for situations like this HH the Dalai Lama says when a practioner is involved in such egregious behavior, it needs to be made known via the media. Well, agreed. Still, its a good thing to keep in mind on a more general basis. This applies to religions in general, but of course I have my own preferences. It also applies to TMers here for me, even though I might get sarcastic at times. But then this is a forum dedicated to a critical view of TM. Indeed. You can therefore be sure that any TMers who have hung around here for any length of time have developed very thick skins. Or they're masochists. Either way, you don't really need to worry about being gentle with us. ;-) Speak for yourself. The fact that I was known to associate with sado-masochistic strippers at the coffee house where I hung out late at night didn't mean that I got involved with them physically/romantically... Though it WAS fun to win bets with unsuspecting rubes that I could walk up and grope two in the ass without getting slapped (having been their late night masseur for months previously, I just walked up, explained the bet, and groped, eliciting a hug afterwards, as well as a dropped jaw from the guy who made the bet). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: snip Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! Well, actual success with a sidhi, whether its twitching, hopping, or full-blown floating, is quite distracting. To even be aware OF the flavor of the sidhi means that you are no longer in samadhi, even if samadhi is inherent in the success. That's samadhi as in *transcendental consciousness by itself*. Important distinction. Some samadhi coexists with awareness of the flavor. One isn't moving from 100 percent samadhi-no-awareness-OF-anything into 100 percent waking-state-no-samadhi. At least as I understand it, that's the point, to stabilize the coexistence of samadhi with waking state.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL
I was going to say that Bob can resubscribe at any time. He needed to unsubscribe or he wouldn't have done it. Last week was completely cathartic for me (personally). I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, but it is a thing. From: Ravi Yogi raviy...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL Home wrecker..ha..ha, thanks Raunchy, he is mad that I didn't support him enough, so he is actually mad on me but he will be back. From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 6:17:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Robin - thank you for kind comments and the clarifications. Yes, that makes sense - Reality's retribution, I'm hoping he will return to FFL soon. Me too, Ravi. I feel like a home wrecker in the middle of a divorce. I'll miss him for all the reasons Robin so eloquently expressed. http://youtu.be/UnTeTYKA3gU From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 5:43:38 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL Ah, that would be retribution from realityâ€reality having inspired BP to unsubscribeâ€directed, enacted against *us*. Not towards Bobâ€it's just that we didn't realize what would happen if weâ€in some measure excessivelyâ€turned against BP. Retribution therefore took the form of BP unsubscribing. This is the only way we could know what we had done. The awareness of the loss of Bob Price at FFL, that *is* our retribution. Yes, I agree: I erred seriously in my damning BP with faint praise. That is, failing to say it outright: Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. You got me there, Ravi. And now my conscience is clear. Yes, you are indeed a lover not a mere apologist. And I for one envy you your love. You, it seems, are the only one here who truly understood the soul of BP. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: Retribution (towards Bob) - don't agree. (Bob) apologist for Ravi - yes, he is a lover. Ironically, I think Bob Price was as alive and creative as any poster at FFL. - WTF? I would say Bob Price was the most alive and creative poster at FFL. (Bob) offensive or uncharitable - sure if you sliced and diced his words as if words really meant anything in the first place. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 11, 2011 1:09:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Bob Price Unsubscribes at FFL So Bob Price has unsubscribed (according to Alex). This is a pity, for he was undoubtedly one of the most thoughtful and witty and sophisticated posters FFL has seen. And there was a real sweetness and tenderness there. Even as he proved fearlessâ€and evidently unanswerableâ€in challenging certain formidable personalities at FFL His use of youtube was Mozartian. I doubt there is anyone out there more adroit and discriminatingâ€and culturally attunedâ€in their deployment of specific videos as commentary on various posts and posters at FFL. His sense of humour through his choice of videos was unsurpassed in my opinion. He brought delight and instruction to me a multitude of times with his video selections. But then, just as a writer he was fluent and coherentâ€and it seems to me entirely unprejudiced [in the subjective sense]. Despite his becoming an apologist for Ravi at the end, I nevertheless felt that his sincerity and fair-mindedness was never in question. In fact I deem him to have written some quite brilliant posts. Bob Price is a remarkable human being and I imagine to meet him in person (anyone here had the experience?) utterly gracious and charmingâ€and terrific company. I could even say that in his having removed himself from the context of FFL there is a void there, and I wish someone would persuade him to change his mind. Not necessarily right away, but in the future. I think his backing of Ravi was from within his heart and that he said nothing which came from something small-minded or constricted in himself. I am sorry his comments produced a reaction which, I must assume, was, at least partly, his reason for exiting FFL. I think it almost a form of retribution that we are now deprived of his wit and fluency and deep intelligence. Bob Price proved to be equal to anyone (IMO) in his ability to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. I'm not that enlightened, sorry. My love is still conditional on being treated like a human being.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: snip Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! Well, actual success with a sidhi, whether its twitching, hopping, or full-blown floating, is quite distracting. To even be aware OF the flavor of the sidhi means that you are no longer in samadhi, even if samadhi is inherent in the success. That's samadhi as in *transcendental consciousness by itself*. Important distinction. Some samadhi coexists with awareness of the flavor. One isn't moving from 100 percent samadhi-no-awareness-OF-anything into 100 percent waking-state-no-samadhi. At least as I understand it, that's the point, to stabilize the coexistence of samadhi with waking state. This is one of those who knows? moments, I think. THough, if you look at the little vibrational diagram that corresponds to the bubble diagram of for TM, you'll note that there appears to be this fluctuation between pure samadhi and samadhi-with-flavor and back. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip That's really how I see things. I participate in Inter- net chat forums to *chat*; that is, for the fun of just tossing ideas back and forth between people. I honestly don't think that any of my ideas are worth pushing on other people, or presenting as if they were some kind of truth. Is that why you continually toss the exact same ideas out, like this one, for instance? You must think it's pretty important that everyone sees it as if it were some kind of truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: snip Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! Well, actual success with a sidhi, whether its twitching, hopping, or full-blown floating, is quite distracting. To even be aware OF the flavor of the sidhi means that you are no longer in samadhi, even if samadhi is inherent in the success. That's samadhi as in *transcendental consciousness by itself*. Important distinction. Some samadhi coexists with awareness of the flavor. One isn't moving from 100 percent samadhi-no-awareness-OF-anything into 100 percent waking-state-no-samadhi. At least as I understand it, that's the point, to stabilize the coexistence of samadhi with waking state. This is one of those who knows? moments, I think. THough if you look at the little vibrational diagram that corresponds to the bubble diagram of for TM, you'll note that there appears to be this fluctuation between pure samadhi and samadhi-with-flavor and back. Oh, sure, it's just that when you say no longer in samadhi, it sounds like you mean there ain't no samadhi at all if one is aware of a flavor (or twitching or whatever). That's all I was getting at.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Aggressive-Passive - Are conversations something to win?
On 12/11/2011 01:28 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Ignoring the context in which the term aggressive- passive recently arose, I propose a generic thread in which to (hopefully peaceably) discuss what I see as the genesis of that mindset. In an earlier reply to Curtis, I found myself dashing off the following sentence: Call me crazy, but I prefer -- both on the Internet and in real life -- having conversations with people whose definition of the word conversation does not include the word win. That's really how I see things. I participate in Inter- net chat forums to *chat*; that is, for the fun of just tossing ideas back and forth between people. I honestly don't think that any of my ideas are worth pushing on other people, or presenting as if they were some kind of truth. I have no clue as to truth. I don't even believe in the concept. I'm not even convinced about things being true. Pretty much the only thing that I'm convinced is true, at this point in my life, is that it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning. And, of course, even that is not true. The sun no more rises than Hugh Hefner's dick does without Viagra. :-) So what I'm wondering is, Where does this compulsion to 'win' Internet discussions come from? With regard to TM, and this forum in particular, I think a lot of it comes from Maharishi. Does anyone here remember Maharishi ever having admitted to being wrong about something? Anything? But before that, I think we can trace this mindset back to Shankara, founder of the order and the philosophy that Maharishi...uh...borrowed from so extensively. *He* was a compulsive gotta win personality, and rose to whatever fame he achieved by holding debates all over India to prove that he was right and everybody else was wrong. You'll have to excuse my candor here, but WHAT A FUCKIN' WASTE OF LIFE! Life is so *cool*, man. There are infinite numbers of things to see and groove on presented to us every day. We will each see them and interpret them based on our own life experiences, and our own samskaras. And that's *OK* in my book. So why do so many seem to feel otherwise? Why do they tend to see every conversation-starter as the perfect opportunity for the argument I already have prepared, and was looking forward to having today? Seems like a waste of life to me. I prefer jackpotting ideas around with other more laissez-faire individuals, about things we mutually find interesting, even if only for the length of one conversation. That can be movies, or music, or some more spiritual topic, or even politics, if the other people can lighten up enough to laugh at it, as it should be laughed at. I honestly don't *understand* others' seemingly compulsive need to try to turn every exchange into a battle that they can win, even if only in their own minds. Can someone explain it to me? One of things about reading FFL with a email client is you can measure the posting activity as well as see graphically the flow of posts. So this morning when I fired up the computer is get 116 posts to download since about 7:30 last night. What are they about? Nothing much of interest to me, just same ol' same ol'. Call it Obsession Alley. :-D More interesting was the excellent Korean thriller I watched last night on Netflix, The Chaser. Highly recommended but a bit brutal in places. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Chaser/7009514 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190539/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uselessness of the TM Sidhis technique for levitation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: snip Lawson, puhleeze, how on Earth could that be (except perhaps to nirbiija-samaadhi or dharma-megha-samaadhi, but one has to fly thousands of hours on Earth before one is ready to fly to the Moon!)? Heck, samaadhi is part of the *definition* of saMyama!! Well, actual success with a sidhi, whether its twitching, hopping, or full-blown floating, is quite distracting. To even be aware OF the flavor of the sidhi means that you are no longer in samadhi, even if samadhi is inherent in the success. That's samadhi as in *transcendental consciousness by itself*. Important distinction. Some samadhi coexists with awareness of the flavor. One isn't moving from 100 percent samadhi-no-awareness-OF-anything into 100 percent waking-state-no-samadhi. At least as I understand it, that's the point, to stabilize the coexistence of samadhi with waking state. This is one of those who knows? moments, I think. THough if you look at the little vibrational diagram that corresponds to the bubble diagram of for TM, you'll note that there appears to be this fluctuation between pure samadhi and samadhi-with-flavor and back. Oh, sure, it's just that when you say no longer in samadhi, it sounds like you mean there ain't no samadhi at all if one is aware of a flavor (or twitching or whatever). That's all I was getting at. Right, though, I have a funny feeling that should I ever find myself floating, my first reaction the first time will be a very intense OMG! which won't be all that samadhi-ish. L.
[FairfieldLife] Search For Self Called Off After 38 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
http://www.theonion.com/articles/search-for-self-called-off-after-38-years,1 794/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting series: a heretic in the Vatican
It all depends on the eyes of the beholder. The Sistine Chapel is filled with paintings of naked people. Less apparent are the hidden images that Michaelangelo painted either as prank or secret messages for posterity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Fascinating (from my heretical point of view) series of articles by someone...uh...less than faithful who managed to talk himself into the Vatican. Try to imagine Curtis touring the joint. Just sayin'. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2011/vatican_inside_the_secret_city/vatican_guide_the_pope_s_pornographic_bathroom.html http://goo.gl/ibiw1 This article is the latest in the series. Its prede- cessors are under the ALL ENTRIES heading.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
There's also a meditation technique mentioned by a famous Buddhist monk that includes smiling during the breathing process. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I agree that the first 3 examples are purely physical or at least could be. There's also always the possibility that some arbitrary syllable takes advantage of some hardwired connection in the brain so that vocalizing that sound will produce activity in the brain in close proximity to the related body part. Of course, both scenarios might apply in some cases, or perhaps there's a neural connection that is established simply because of the physical effects that you mention creating a pavlovian response in the nervous system. Or whatever. Shrugs elaborately. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip Even forced laughter is said to have positive effects, according to ayurveda. One of Chopra's exercises from the good ole days was to use different syllables to produce specific beneficial effects. Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho, hee-hee-hee, over and over again for 30 seconds or a minute (?) or so, was thought to help alleviate stomach troubles. Humming a vocalized loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate earaches. Humming a vocalized mmm loudly (as long as you didn't hurt your throat) was thought to help alleviate sinus issues. But these would be purely physical effects, not due to any mystical resonance woowoo, no? I mean, it's easy to see how Ha-ha-ha etc. would massage the stomach and trigger a belch to relieve gas, simply because it moves the diaphragm in and out repeatedly. And Mmm and Nnn would set up vibrations throughout the structures of the skull that might break up phlegm or stimulate fluid to drain from the eustachian tubes. There's an entire tradition that relates every syllable in sanskrit to some part of the body in some therapeutic way. I don't recall which syllable relates to the knee, but apparently tradition holds that there is one. A percussive sound that impacts the patellar tendon, perhaps?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Search For Self Called Off After 38 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: http://www.theonion.com/articles/search-for-self-called-off-after-38-years,1 794/ Art is now imitating my life! Brilliant.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
Haven't checked out what laughing yoga yet, but this yoga mom and babe made me smile. It's been around for awhile - you may have seen it already. All the laughing I've done on this forum has definitely improved my brain chemistry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_fLJ_Md8Qo From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: This is very interesting to me also Barry. I've been doing some research on laughing yoga with similar positive results. Our neurology can be trigger from either direction, inner or outer with similar physical effects. Check out some of the youtubes on laughing yoga they are a real hoot. It is something I never would have considered in the past but for some reason seems to hit me right now. I am considering adding it to one of my educational seminars on humor and learning for teachers as a state change ice breaker. There is some statistic that kids laugh over a hundred times a day and adults may not even hit 10. I make myself laugh from looking at things funny many times day but it is interesting how content free the experience can also be. It has some profound implications for our often humorless classrooms. Great stuff, Curtis. What situation -- especially education -- could *not* be improved by the judicious use of humor? I just *love* your phrase state change ice breaker. That's great. That's what truly funny people DO for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyjjD-D70ic --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the ground in Fairfield, what do you think of this whole smiling thing? What's the story at the domes? Do those exiting from the domes smile a lot, or not? I really don't know, so I'm really asking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: Has anyone ever explained to the saints that visit Fairfield that the issue exists, The issue, that many are not allowed to visit them? They know since a long time. and why it exists in the first place? Well, it would be hard for me to explain this, because I don't understand it myself. Do you mean Rick should step up to Ammachi, and say something like: 'Amma, you should not visit Fairfield anymore, TM Rajas don't like it, and you are having a bad influence on TB TMers.'? I think, that if you feel chosen, why don't you visit them and explain, after all you stand behind it. Go, see Ammachi and tell her, that is if you dare. It is like the Vatican explaining to the TM people they should stay away from Rome, because it's their territory. I have a funny feeling that a lot of the visiting saints would be very incensed with the people who invite them to Fairfield if they learned that they were at the heart of the controversy without being informed of the whole story... You mean incensed by the TM people who invite them (how you know it's 'TM-people'?) or the TM Rajas? Quite honestly neither. Their approach is that anyone can see them who has a desire and need to do so. No badches needed and direct access possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Haven't checked out what laughing yoga yet, but this yoga mom and babe made me smile. It's been around for awhile - you may have seen it already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_fLJ_Md8Qo A classic, Emily. Many thanks. I live in a household that is -- fortunately -- inhabited by a young person who has the same tendency to bust your shit when you're focusing on something that she considers relatively unimportant, from her point of view. And then taking steps to rectify the situation. Like living with a Zen Master. :-) All the laughing I've done on this forum has definitely improved my brain chemistry. Good to hear. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating Facts About Smiles - mindful smiling  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: This is very interesting to me also Barry. I've been doing some research on laughing yoga with similar positive results. Our neurology can be trigger from either direction, inner or outer with similar physical effects. Check out some of the youtubes on laughing yoga they are a real hoot. It is something I never would have considered in the past but for some reason seems to hit me right now. I am considering adding it to one of my educational seminars on humor and learning for teachers as a state change ice breaker. There is some statistic that kids laugh over a hundred times a day and adults may not even hit 10. I make myself laugh from looking at things funny many times day but it is interesting how content free the experience can also be.  It has some profound implications for our often humorless classrooms. Great stuff, Curtis. What situation -- especially education -- could *not* be improved by the judicious use of humor? I just *love* your phrase state change ice breaker. That's great. That's what truly funny people DO for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyjjD-D70ic --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: From one of the TED talks, a series of amazing scientific facts about the human smile. Did you know that your smile can predict how long you live, or the length and happiness of your marriage? Did you know that one smile produces the same level of brain pleasure center feel good activity as 2000 bars of chocolate? And smiling doesn't make you fat. :-) What these facts suggest to me is that adding a few smiles to your day will probably do more to expand the level of happiness in the world -- both yours and others -- than any amount of buttbouncing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cGdRNMdQQ Just to follow up, I was completely serious in my last sentence. I was quite taken by the research cited by Ron Gutman that seemed to indicate that the physical act of smiling has a profound effect on the areas of the brain that generate our sense of happiness or well-being. If this is true, it kinda flips a commonly-assumed assumption on its ass. What if smiling is not the effect of a feeling of happiness and well-being, but one of the causes of it? In other words, could something as simple as smiling more, intentionally actually *bring about* changes in one's blood chemistry that one associates with happiness and well-being? Well, I can attest that it does (in my subjective opinion, the worth of which plus a buck fifty will get you a bad cup of Starbucks coffee) . Since watching this TED clip, I've been practicing mindful smiling. That is, every time during the day I realize that I am not smiling, I smile. Call it coming back to the smile mantra if you like. :-) What I've been noticing is that -- for me -- this seems to subtly shift my state of attention, into a slightly more happy mindstate. And, as the speaker in the clip said, it's evolutionarily contagious. I just got back from a walk around my town, during which I turned smiling into a spiritual practice, and smiled non-stop. I feel great. And, interestingly enough, even in Holland, even on a cold, dreary December day, my smiles were con- tagious. Many people smiled back. Based on some of the research that Ron Gutman presented in his talk, that simple act of smiling back gave their brains a boost of feel-good endorphins stronger than 2000 bars of chocolate would have done. And all it took to trigger it was some stranger smiling at them. Good deal. Win-win in my book. So...those of you still reading at this point :-), and still living on the
[FairfieldLife] Is Visible Man the Segway of this decade?
Here's a list of the tech failures of the decade. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1898610,00.html I suspect Facebook, Twitter and Google will be on the next list. Is there anyone here who will say they get bliss out of Depak's original Bliss Technique? If you experienced bliss, it subsided after a few weeks. Yes, it lasted longer than you got from the famous decocaneize cocoa leaf tea which stayed on the market for years until a biochemist at UCLA thought about it and realized it's impossible to decocanize cocoa leaf but still keep the other alkaloids in it. Anybody here want to attest that their money for MVVT was indeed money well spent? Anybody here still drink and replenish their holy water?
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
That was great Curtis. Both videos. I enjoyed the Mark Lohr performance. I have to say that I especially enjoyed yours. I felt you connected well with the audience. Here is St.Louis they have the City Museum, where, if Im not mistaken they offer various classes in different performing arts. I know my neighbors are pretty heavily involved in it. http://www.citymuseum.org/site/ http://www.citymuseum.org/site/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: That is so funny you mentioned this. I was sitting next to a professional clown at lunch the other day in a course we are taking together. He is the real Barnum and Bailey trained real deal. His physical comedy is so advanced that it really is shocking how little respect they get...in the US. It turns out according to him that in Europe clowning is seen as a venerable profession and a high art form. But here when he tells people he is a clown they usually say do you do birthday parties?
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I especially enjoyed the original blues instruments. They sounded so authentic. I mean, I guess the modern instruments allow you to do more things, but those originals really captured the era, and the sound I associate with that music. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Thanks for checking it out Barry. 8 minutes is a frantic pace for telling the history of modern music! To bad they didn't have more people at this showcase. I did one the next week with tons of kids, great reaction and no video! But it should be useful for promoting my shows for this agent. My lack of theater training really shows in this clip. I'm pretty sure ass to audience is not the preferred position, and yet I saw that a lot in this clip! Every show teaches me something. Thanks again. Since by group decree we seem to wedded for life, it would totally suck if you hated it!
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Your video somehow got me inspired to post one of my favorites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itvAl29UHHg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itvAl29UHHg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I especially enjoyed the original blues instruments. They sounded so authentic. I mean, I guess the modern instruments allow you to do more things, but those originals really captured the era, and the sound I associate with that music. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for checking it out Barry. 8 minutes is a frantic pace for telling the history of modern music! To bad they didn't have more people at this showcase. I did one the next week with tons of kids, great reaction and no video! But it should be useful for promoting my shows for this agent. My lack of theater training really shows in this clip. I'm pretty sure ass to audience is not the preferred position, and yet I saw that a lot in this clip! Every show teaches me something. Thanks again. Since by group decree we seem to wedded for life, it would totally suck if you hated it!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dome meeting with Maharaja-ji
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has anyone ever explained to the saints that visit Fairfield that the issue exists, The issue, that many are not allowed to visit them? They know since a long time. and why it exists in the first place? Well, it would be hard for me to explain this, because I don't understand it myself. Do you mean Rick should step up to Ammachi, and say something like: 'Amma, you should not visit Fairfield anymore, TM Rajas don't like it, and you are having a bad influence on TB TMers.'? I think, that if you feel chosen, why don't you visit them and explain, after all you stand behind it. Go, see Ammachi and tell her, that is if you dare. I don't live in Fairfield, but the ban, as far as I know, goes back to Robin Carlsen's antics. It is like the Vatican explaining to the TM people they should stay away from Rome, because it's their territory. I have a funny feeling that a lot of the visiting saints would be very incensed with the people who invite them to Fairfield if they learned that they were at the heart of the controversy without being informed of the whole story... You mean incensed by the TM people who invite them (how you know it's 'TM-people'?) or the TM Rajas? Quite honestly neither. Their approach is that anyone can see them who has a desire and need to do so. No badches needed and direct access possible. And do they know why there is the issue and what the result is? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thanks for checking it out Steve, and your comments. I am heard about City Museum, I would love to play there if I ever take my show on the road that far. The thing about modern instruments, by which I guess you mean electric guitars, is that you really have to master your amps to get a charming tone. With acoustic instruments the tone is a given and is usually totally unique to the instrument. The tone of the cigar box guitar is something worth preserving I believe, as well as those old resonators. One has three resonating cones and the other has one big one. Each has its own tone signature that is best for certain songs. I'm gunna play these acoustic instruments till I hit my 80's if I can physically. Then I'll switch to electric guitars like most of my old blues heroes did cuz it takes much less physical effort to get the sound out. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I especially enjoyed the original blues instruments. They sounded so authentic. I mean, I guess the modern instruments allow you to do more things, but those originals really captured the era, and the sound I associate with that music. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Thanks for checking it out Barry. 8 minutes is a frantic pace for telling the history of modern music! To bad they didn't have more people at this showcase. I did one the next week with tons of kids, great reaction and no video! But it should be useful for promoting my shows for this agent. My lack of theater training really shows in this clip. I'm pretty sure ass to audience is not the preferred position, and yet I saw that a lot in this clip! Every show teaches me something. Thanks again. Since by group decree we seem to wedded for life, it would totally suck if you hated it!
[FairfieldLife] Roja - Rukmini
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZvnov_ytzcfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Hawthorne Heights - Silver Bullet
It wasn't this was it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OhNfDHTqk
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hawthorne Heights - Silver Bullet
Dear Denise, Remember this American Krishna doesn't ignore his Gopis, his older women. As you can see I was busy :-). I will check the links but it's Rukmini time, I know she will be waiting for me. Check - Silver Bullet on Wikipedia, Bob sent me a link a 1960's comic strip. I didn't get a chance to read in detail. On Dec 11, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: It wasn't this was it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4OhNfDHTqk
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of maskedzebra Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:48 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday Oh, now I know what mood-making is. I imagined a grace that wasn't even there-because Rick told me it was Barry's birthday. So I need not have gone through that crucifixion of my pride; I could have just continued to hate Barry's guts. Good. That feels better to have killed off the birthday context and returned to the much more accustomed feeling: That Barry Wright guy from Amsterdam: he no good. However, it was salutary to remind me: Yes, Robin: even Barry Wright has birthdays. And I had better be prepared for it. This was an excellent and necessary rehearsal. Please get it right next time, Rick. And by the way, there is a pretty big (Western) birthday coming up. Why is there some feeling of happiness, particularly right up until noon on the 25th? How come we don't celebrate Krishna's birthday? Or that lovely Mohammed guy? I don't know what the Muslims do, but Hindus make a big fuss over Krishna's birthday. Consume tons of sugar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open 'Performance' Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip [to Ravi:] Or maybe the gods had nothing to do with it, you were being a dick and got called on it. I get it that the routine has worked on people who have you hate Barry too so I love you glasses on This is crap. It has apparently escaped your notice that there are quite a few folks around here who are on the record as finding Barry's behavior unacceptable, and yet somehow they don't escape criticism from each other when they themselves are seen to behave badly--Bob Price, for example, who just *unsubscribed* because he came in for criticism from some of Barry's most prominent critics for supporting Ravi in his attacks on them. That doesn't quite fit into your facile, self-serving equation, now, does it? The personality dynamics on FFL are a lot more complex and nuanced than you dream, or wish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Today is Barry Wright's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Nabby? Judy? Ravi? Robin? Now's your chance to shower him with love and kisses. Happy Birthday, Barry! http://youtu.be/cXSOD1N5lR4
