[FairfieldLife] Re: Dr. Ben Carson puts Obama in his place (finally).

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/video/doctor-slams-debt-health-care-221909235.html
> 
> Says our tax policy should be based on the Bible--"If it was
> good enough for God..."
> 
> I kid you not.

And this is immediately after he makes the case for doctors
involving themselves in politics and policy because doctors
deal with facts.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dr. Ben Carson puts Obama in his place (finally).

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/video/doctor-slams-debt-health-care-221909235.html

Says our tax policy should be based on the Bible--"If it was
good enough for God..."

I kid you not.

[FairfieldLife] Dr. Ben Carson puts Obama in his place (finally).

[wgm4u]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/doctor-slams-debt-health-care-221909235.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkX7-CcVLVw


Thanks Doc.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Will you be my relationship coach, pretty please?? LOL
> > 
> > All you have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, red and white 
> > make pink, blue and brown make purple and so on.
> 
> 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > > > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > > > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > > > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > > > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > > > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > > > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > > > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > > > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > > > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > > > > in their heads. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Great post Barry. 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
> > > > tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
> > > > colored glasses. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > > As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > > > > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> > > > > desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> > > > > ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
> > > > for a while described interpersonal interactions as
> > > > "touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
> > > > yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
> > > > Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
> > > > aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
> > > > intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
> > > > involved with them. 
> > > > 
> > > > Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
> > > > about the nature of relationships, I still like the
> > > > "merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
> > > > blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.
> > > > 
> > > > A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
> > > > individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
> > > > ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
> > > > "color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
> > > > put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
> > > > your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
> > > > concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
> > > > in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
> > > > their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
> > > > and you suddenly have a third color, green. 
> > > > 
> > > > That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
> > > > and why one should never blame the other party if a 
> > > > relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
> > > > merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
> > > > isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
> > > > having relationships is just in recognizing when the
> > > > aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
> > > > ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.
> > > > 
> > > > Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
> > > > think he might have been onto something with this
> > > > metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
> > > > Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
> > > > Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
> > > > CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
> > > > sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
> > > > way. 
> > > > 
> > > > But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
> > > > and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
> > > > Learning to recognize such things before they even
> > > > start, that can be even more valuable. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> 
> > All you have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, 
> > red and white make pink, blue and brown make purple and so on.
> 
> This depends on the colour theory you are using. This sounds like mixing 
> paints.
> 
> With light blue and red make magenta
> With light blue and green make cyan
> With light green and red make yellow
> With light, blue and yellow make white
> With light, green and magenta make white
> With light, cyan and red make white
> 
> With printing inks or paints, blue and yellow make black
> (but cyan and yellow make green), and so on.
> With artists colours though, colour descriptions are less
> technical, for example cyan is called blue
> as it is a bluish color, and depend on a 
> lot of experience to blend and mix 
> to get desired effects. Thus there are 
> all sorts of fancy names for colours often 
> determined by the pigment material out of which 
> a paint is manufactured, e.g.:
> 
>  Cadmium Red Light
>  Perylene Red
>  Cadmium Yellow Light
>  Hansa Yellow Medium
>  Phthalo Green
>  Viridian
>  Dioxazine Purple
>  Ultramarine Blue
>  Indianthrone Blue
>  Transparent Earth Orange
>  Ivory Black
>  Titanium White
> 
> This discussion was brought to you on behalf of the now dead Clerk Maxwell, 
> who invented or discovered the tri-colour theory of vision, and also wrote 
> the first unified field equations, combining the electrical force field and 
> the magnetic force field into a single theory.
> 
> In physics colours are referred to by wavelength or if a mixture, by dominant 
> wavelength. Thus a colour can be referred to as the hydrogen alpha line in a 
> spectrum or 656.28nm elctromagnetic radiation.
> 
> Here is a PDF document that describes a colour filter that could be used in 
> motion picture work or for astronomy or a physics experiment; the filter is 
> nominally blue (actually blue-green) visually, but it also transmits in 
> infrared:

See, how beautiful is all of that? And yes, as an art major I was talking about 
paint mix. But your descriptions of light vs paint vs ink gives a glimpse of 
all of the subtle permutations within it all. Just reading about the names of 
colours is like experiencing the subtler levels of creation and how delicate, 
infinite and almost imperceptibly varied they are. I know you didn't say all of 
that but just in reading the names of the colours that very thing came through. 
And all from a joke I was making with the Doc about Barry's aura story.
> 
> http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedfiles/Kodak/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Kodak_Filters/W2-38A.pdf
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[doctordumbass]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkX7-CcVLVw


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Will you be my relationship coach, pretty please?? LOL
> 
> All you have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, red and white 
> make pink, blue and brown make purple and so on.


> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > > > in their heads. 
> > > > 
> > > > Great post Barry. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
> > > tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
> > > colored glasses. :-)
> > > 
> > > > As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > > > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> > > > desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> > > > ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
> > > for a while described interpersonal interactions as
> > > "touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
> > > yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
> > > Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
> > > aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
> > > intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
> > > involved with them. 
> > > 
> > > Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
> > > about the nature of relationships, I still like the
> > > "merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
> > > blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.
> > > 
> > > A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
> > > individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
> > > ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
> > > "color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
> > > put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
> > > your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
> > > concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
> > > in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
> > > their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
> > > and you suddenly have a third color, green. 
> > > 
> > > That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
> > > and why one should never blame the other party if a 
> > > relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
> > > merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
> > > isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
> > > having relationships is just in recognizing when the
> > > aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
> > > ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.
> > > 
> > > Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
> > > think he might have been onto something with this
> > > metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
> > > Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
> > > Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
> > > CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
> > > sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
> > > way. 
> > > 
> > > But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
> > > and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
> > > Learning to recognize such things before they even
> > > start, that can be even more valuable. :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > On 02/17/2013 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote:
> (snip)
> > > You meant something more like "He's religious about
> > > brushing his teeth." ;-)
> > 
> > Have you been to a dentist lately?  I swear they now train the 
> > techs as if brushing and flossing is a religion. :-D
> 
> You mean, as a transcendental activity?

Keep going you two, I know you both have more in there...
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[obbajeeba]

Here we go! Spoken like a truth man who is sure of himself.
I should have taken this high road a few months ago when I dumped a long time 
friend who started behaving a lot like turq. She was turning into a prude and 
always made sure I heard, "We are old. We are getting old." Her jealousy would 
take her to extremes and I had always overlooked this part of her for 18 years. 
Always, I shoulder shrugged her comments to me, "I need a wife." "My husband 
and I need a wife." I thought she was joking. Kept my heterosexual relationship 
with her, disregarding subtle hints and comments. She was a good friend. It is 
just friends who hide their sexual attraction for you, can creep one out, 
eventually...and it did. So I broke off the long time friendship, when I was 
accused of not doing something for her loved one, while I was in full throttle 
to help mine. She expected me to dump my duty and save her family member who 
was not in harm's way.
She was mad that I did not obey her order. 
I should have done just what the good doctor just wrote below. Would have 
solved all the annoying text messages, blocked Facebook, the ignored calls. If 
I would have just kissed her, put my hands on her body, held her in my arms, 
all may have turned out fine...for her. LOL
Dr. Du M. Bass, you go girl! I hope this brings the Turq to his senses, his 
lips moist and ready puckered as he kicks his little wiener (I know you 
nickname him, dachshund, wink, wink.) to the side, his other ("dachshund") may 
try to intervene. Move over gender bias, let's kiss the one's who truly want to 
come out of the closet. No wonder Barry hates women. Awe, tsk, tsk. We love you 
Barry. Take the offer as the first man to embrace your true nature. Us real 
women will promise to to stare or giggle..

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> I can't stand it anymore, Barry - Let our lips meet where our hearts cannot - 
> Just shut up and kiss me!!!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. 
> > > You comparing me to a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - 
> > > Not because I don't recognize my feminine side, but its 
> > > like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no 
> > > thank you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.
> > 
> > This is somewhat rich coming from the guy who pretended
> > to be a woman named enlightened_dawn11 on this forum 
> > for some time, n'est-ce pas?  :-)
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > > > did I not?  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > > > have.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > > > appearance. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And, fortunately, many women do. If 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Hey Barry baby - I read this article this morning - hoping this may somehow
> help you deal with the notions of defect, shame, weakness, inferiority you
> attach to being a woman -
> http://www.salon.com/2013/02/17/the_labia_pride_movement/

Ravi, a stroke of genius. This could make all the difference for Barry. At 
least he'll realize that he is literally surrounded by labias, there is no 
escape. Surrender is inevitable. I think I heard once that no matter where you 
were in the world there was always a cunt within 50 feet of where you stood. 
Formidable.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
> > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
> > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > go more than a little batshit crazy.
> >
> > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our
> > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > to become invisible.
> >
> > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it.
> >
> > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how
> > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface
> > appearance.
> >
> > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're
> > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery
> > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily
> > sex objects.
> >
> > But women. That seems to be another story.
> >
> > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react
> > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > that they were no longer even in the running for being
> > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them,
> > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object.
> >
> > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and
> > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> >
> > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > the surprising percentage of women they have become
> > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for
> > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> > leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> >
> > Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> > that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> > years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> > a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> > temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> > ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> > to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> > DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> > thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> > sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> > to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy."
> >
> > The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in
> > the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> > esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> > hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> > scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more
> > attractive, at least to me. As many sp

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > On 02/17/2013 02:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
> > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
> > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > go more than a little batshit crazy.
> > >

 
> > You mean "Uncle Tantra" doesn't know Vashikaran!
> >
> 
> Best one liner of the week!

I am definitely finding a way to work that into a conversation - "Whadd'ya 
mean?? I'm tellin' ya, those politicians don't know shit from Vashikaran."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

I can't stand it anymore, Barry - Let our lips meet where our hearts cannot - 
Just shut up and kiss me!!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. 
> > You comparing me to a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - 
> > Not because I don't recognize my feminine side, but its 
> > like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no 
> > thank you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.
> 
> This is somewhat rich coming from the guy who pretended
> to be a woman named enlightened_dawn11 on this forum 
> for some time, n'est-ce pas?  :-)
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > > did I not?  :-)
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > > 
> > > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > > have.
> > > > 
> > > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > > appearance. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > > > > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > > > > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > > > > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > > > > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > > > > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > > > > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > > > > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > > > > sex objects. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > > > > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > > > > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > > > > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > > > > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > > > > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> > > > > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > > > > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > > > > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> > > > > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > > > > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > > > > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > > > > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > > > > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > > > > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > > > > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > > > > the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> > > > > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> > > > > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > > > > the illusion of their sexual object sta

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Mon 18-Feb-13 00:15:03 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 02/16/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 02/23/13 00:00:00
211 messages as of (UTC) 02/17/13 22:50:26

20 obbajeeba 
18 Ravi Chivukula 
16 turquoiseb 
16 seventhray27 
16 doctordumbass
14 authfriend 
12 Share Long 
12 Bhairitu 
12 Ann 
11 navashok 
10 Carol 
 8 Michael Jackson 
 7 nablusoss1008 
 7 card 
 6 salyavin808 
 4 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 4 Richard J. Williams 
 3 merudanda 
 3 Emily Reyn 
 3 Buck 
 2 John 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 raunchydog 
 1 mjackson74 
 1 martin.quickman 
 1 devindersingh gulati 
 1 Mike Dixon 
Posters: 27
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 02/17/2013 02:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
> > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
> > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > go more than a little batshit crazy.
> >
> > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our
> > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > to become invisible.
> >
> > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it.
> >
> > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how
> > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface
> > appearance.
> >
> > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're
> > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery
> > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily
> > sex objects.
> >
> > But women. That seems to be another story.
> >
> > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react
> > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > that they were no longer even in the running for being
> > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them,
> > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object.
> >
> > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and
> > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> >
> > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > the surprising percentage of women they have become
> > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for
> > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> > leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> >
> > Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> > that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> > years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> > a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> > temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> > ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> > to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> > DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> > thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> > sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> > to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy."
> >
> > The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in
> > the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> > esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> > hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> > scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more
> > attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers
> > have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas
> > are the playground of those who have grown more wise."
> >
> > I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
> > days you've gotten to see examples of the opposite -- women
> > who like to think of themselves as strong, independent
> > feminists but who go batshit crazy the moment someone
> > suggests that they are not fuckable. And who then channel
> > that batshitcrazinessitude into trying to portray the person
> > who suggested such a thing as somehow "sexually impaired"
> > themselves. And, of cour

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[Bhairitu]

On 02/17/2013 02:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> go more than a little batshit crazy.
>
> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our
> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> to become invisible.
>
> Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it.
>
> Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> beings, men or women, depends in large part on how
> sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> stage and to one in which I knew without question
> that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface
> appearance.
>
> And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> ability to actually *listen* to them when we're
> talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery
> women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily
> sex objects.
>
> But women. That seems to be another story.
>
> Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react
> angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> that they were no longer even in the running for being
> considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them,
> the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> worth in this world is being considered a sexual object.
>
> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and
> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
>
> Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> the surprising percentage of women they have become
> invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for
> whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
>
> Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy."
>
> The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in
> the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more
> attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers
> have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas
> are the playground of those who have grown more wise."
>
> I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
> days you've gotten to see examples of the opposite -- women
> who like to think of themselves as strong, independent
> feminists but who go batshit crazy the moment someone
> suggests that they are not fuckable. And who then channel
> that batshitcrazinessitude into trying to portray the person
> who suggested such a thing as somehow "sexually impaired"
> themselves. And, of course, there are the guys trying to
> be considered women who pile on and join them in this. :-)
>
> I think it's all a little retro, but that might just be
> my age talking. I watch shows like "Californication" mainly
> for the acting and the writing, becau

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[obbajeeba]

blush**
Only if turq is my fluffer, do I need one? I mean, the agent? 


Auth, let's talk about the editing. :)  
I am ready, dear.

Swollen vulva and all! S60 or S80?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> snip
> Poor thing, you have to keep searching for an aura to park your willy in the 
> take out only parking space.
> snip
> 
> do you have an agent, obba?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[obbajeeba]

Yeah, the French got it right. Krishna and Radha, Krishna and Rukmini, Krishna 
and the Gopi's all for monogamy!  
Turq is going to "Tell," us what polygamy is and how great it is!
Please share with us about your mother and father, Turq. Did you have older 
sisters? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > The French had it right all along:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/world/europe/mazarine-pingeot-mitterrand-daughter-looks-back.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> BTW, I meant that the fact that Mitterand's mistress
> walked side by side with his wife in his state funeral
> procession was "getting it right," not the secrecy
> that the family had to put on for the French counter-
> parts of the monogamaphobes. 
> 
> The secrecy, as it turned out, was entirely unnecessary.
> Almost no one in France had any problems with Mitterrand
> having a second family, no more than his wife did. I
> heard people discussing this all the time when I lived
> in France, and everyone considered it pretty normal.
> 
> As for Ms. Pingeot herself, she has happy memories of
> being with a loving father. It's all the hypocrisy that
> some in Miterrand's government felt they had to impose
> on him that caused damage, not the open relationship
> he had with his wife and mistress.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> This is all well put, Xeno, I agree with you entirely.
> 
> One point, though. Even if one thinks the mantras invoke
> deities, even if one feels devotion to those deities,
> when one transcends the mantra, one also transcends
> devotion.

Good point.

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:

> All you have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, 
> red and white make pink, blue and brown make purple and so on.

This depends on the colour theory you are using. This sounds like mixing paints.

With light blue and red make magenta
With light blue and green make cyan
With light green and red make yellow
With light, blue and yellow make white
With light, green and magenta make white
With light, cyan and red make white

With printing inks or paints, blue and yellow make black
(but cyan and yellow make green), and so on.
With artists colours though, colour descriptions are less
technical, for example cyan is called blue
as it is a bluish color, and depend on a 
lot of experience to blend and mix 
to get desired effects. Thus there are 
all sorts of fancy names for colours often 
determined by the pigment material out of which 
a paint is manufactured, e.g.:

 Cadmium Red Light
 Perylene Red
 Cadmium Yellow Light
 Hansa Yellow Medium
 Phthalo Green
 Viridian
 Dioxazine Purple
 Ultramarine Blue
 Indianthrone Blue
 Transparent Earth Orange
 Ivory Black
 Titanium White

This discussion was brought to you on behalf of the now dead Clerk Maxwell, who 
invented or discovered the tri-colour theory of vision, and also wrote the 
first unified field equations, combining the electrical force field and the 
magnetic force field into a single theory.

In physics colours are referred to by wavelength or if a mixture, by dominant 
wavelength. Thus a colour can be referred to as the hydrogen alpha line in a 
spectrum or 656.28nm elctromagnetic radiation.

Here is a PDF document that describes a colour filter that could be used in 
motion picture work or for astronomy or a physics experiment; the filter is 
nominally blue (actually blue-green) visually, but it also transmits in 
infrared:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedfiles/Kodak/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Kodak_Filters/W2-38A.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[authfriend]

This is all well put, Xeno, I agree with you entirely.

One point, though. Even if one thinks the mantras invoke
deities, even if one feels devotion to those deities,
when one transcends the mantra, one also transcends
devotion.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > ... I simply wanted to make the point that TM is not
> > taught as a devotional practice...
> 
> I think this is correct.
> 
> While within the TMO itself, there is a lot of devotion, and was (to MMY when 
> he was living), exactly what makes something devotional is rather complex. 
> When I was at Maharishi Nagar some time ago, a young Indian boy asked me 'Who 
> is your god?', and I had no idea at the time, what he was talking about. 
> Later I presumed he meant something connected with the mantra.
> 
> I think there has to be a conscious sense of devotion. Say a guy, Dick, is 
> attracted to a gal, Jane, falls head over heels for her, and becomes devoted 
> to her welfare. That to me is something different from someone telling Dick 
> that he ought to repeat the name 'Jane' quietly to himself every day, 2x, for 
> 20 minutes. That practice does not necessarily stir up any devotion. Suppose 
> Dick does not know Jane, or he is not an English speaker, then Jane may mean 
> nothing to him even as a name.
> 
> If Dick knows Jane and is smitten, and is asked to repeat the name of Jane, 
> then that might be a devotional practice for Dick.
> 
> I never felt devotional regarding TM. And while there are subtle and not so 
> subtle pressures in and around the movement that nudge one to be of a 
> devotional nature, i n particular to MMY and the 'knowledge', I think you are 
> right that TM is not taught as a devotional practice, even if that was in 
> fact a clandestine intent, because something more, a natural attraction and 
> emotional attitude toward something - a focus - is needed in addition to be 
> devotional. Simply being 'devoted' in a superficial sense, i.e., regular in 
> practice because it feels good, does not supply that added mental and 
> emotional attention needed to be devotional, in the sense that you KNOW what 
> the object of devotion really is.
> 
> If you meditate because you have the idea there is something called 
> 'enlightenment' that you think is real, but entertain 'enlightenment' as an 
> abstract idea whose nature is not actually known, that is, is hypothetical at 
> that point, this does not stir up the kind of feelings that are typically 
> associated with the word devotion when one is emotionally bound to an object 
> or idea. This is how I practiced TM, always wondering if it would actually do 
> the job. The closer I seemed to be getting, there always was some sense of a 
> setback, that the damn thing really was not working, or had stopped working, 
> or maybe I should try something else etc.
> 
> That was because I did not believe it was going to do the job, rather I hoped 
> it might, always a hypothetical element intruded. At that point, after having 
> tried a number of things over the years, the possible variety of techniques 
> had settled down to a very few, less than a handful of generic categories, 
> and so if I wanted to proceed, I had just a small choice of things to do. 
> Because my nature is not naturally devotional in the way people with 
> religious feelings are, the practice of TM, and my relationship with any 
> teacher of spirituality simply did not go down that avenue.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Feb 17, 2013, at 9:28 AM, "seventhray27"  wrote:

>> 
>> Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
>> not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, 
>> well Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of 
>> that.
> Nav, for your sake, I hope you can get off this wheel of rebirth as quickly 
> as possible, cuz it sounds like it's a little taxing. On the other hand, 
> maybe you aspire to be Shankara's greatest hero. Don't know if you are 
> familiar with that quote. But yea, probably best to stay away from women. 
> Wouldn't want to get any coodies.


Loved this - unwilling to look at their own BS - Barry and navashok, instead 
coming with an elaborate belief system. Nav just needs to hang out with me for 
a day - he will then realize its his belief system that is actually so taxing. 
Or he would go - Ravi's a fucking maniac..LOL.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "seventhray27"  wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote:
> snip
> Poor thing, you have to keep searching for an aura to park your willy in the 
> take out only parking space.
> snip
> 
> do you have an agent, obba?
> 

That was indeed the best line in her most awesome post!!!

> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
snip
Poor thing, you have to keep searching for an aura to park your willy in the 
take out only parking space.
snip

do you have an agent, obba?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> ... I simply wanted to make the point that TM is not
> taught as a devotional practice...

I think this is correct.

While within the TMO itself, there is a lot of devotion, and was (to MMY when 
he was living), exactly what makes something devotional is rather complex. When 
I was at Maharishi Nagar some time ago, a young Indian boy asked me 'Who is 
your god?', and I had no idea at the time, what he was talking about. Later I 
presumed he meant something connected with the mantra.

I think there has to be a conscious sense of devotion. Say a guy, Dick, is 
attracted to a gal, Jane, falls head over heels for her, and becomes devoted to 
her welfare. That to me is something different from someone telling Dick that 
he ought to repeat the name 'Jane' quietly to himself every day, 2x, for 20 
minutes. That practice does not necessarily stir up any devotion. Suppose Dick 
does not know Jane, or he is not an English speaker, then Jane may mean nothing 
to him even as a name.

If Dick knows Jane and is smitten, and is asked to repeat the name of Jane, 
then that might be a devotional practice for Dick.

I never felt devotional regarding TM. And while there are subtle and not so 
subtle pressures in and around the movement that nudge one to be of a 
devotional nature, i n particular to MMY and the 'knowledge', I think you are 
right that TM is not taught as a devotional practice, even if that was in fact 
a clandestine intent, because something more, a natural attraction and 
emotional attitude toward something - a focus - is needed in addition to be 
devotional. Simply being 'devoted' in a superficial sense, i.e., regular in 
practice because it feels good, does not supply that added mental and emotional 
attention needed to be devotional, in the sense that you KNOW what the object 
of devotion really is.

If you meditate because you have the idea there is something called 
'enlightenment' that you think is real, but entertain 'enlightenment' as an 
abstract idea whose nature is not actually known, that is, is hypothetical at 
that point, this does not stir up the kind of feelings that are typically 
associated with the word devotion when one is emotionally bound to an object or 
idea. This is how I practiced TM, always wondering if it would actually do the 
job. The closer I seemed to be getting, there always was some sense of a 
setback, that the damn thing really was not working, or had stopped working, or 
maybe I should try something else etc.

That was because I did not believe it was going to do the job, rather I hoped 
it might, always a hypothetical element intruded. At that point, after having 
tried a number of things over the years, the possible variety of techniques had 
settled down to a very few, less than a handful of generic categories, and so 
if I wanted to proceed, I had just a small choice of things to do. Because my 
nature is not naturally devotional in the way people with religious feelings 
are, the practice of TM, and my relationship with any teacher of spirituality 
simply did not go down that avenue.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 02/17/2013 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote:
(snip)
> > You meant something more like "He's religious about
> > brushing his teeth." ;-)
> 
> Have you been to a dentist lately?  I swear they now train the 
> techs as if brushing and flossing is a religion. :-D

You mean, as a transcendental activity?

[FairfieldLife] A "Dreddful" future

[Bhairitu]

I've been trying the Redbox Instant streaming beta and along with it got 
4 free DVD credits which I need to use up by Friday which I cancel the 
account because it's not ready for prime time yet (no app for my BD 
player).  So I caught up on a few movies on DVD, some I would have 
rented BD but they don't allow applying the credit towards the BD by 
paying the extra 50 cents.  One was "Dredd" which is one of the best 
dystopian future movies I've seen to date.

This is not a remake of the Sylvester Stallone movie which probably hurt 
it at the box office because people thought it was.  It more faithfully 
follows the comic book series which chronicled a fascist future 
society.  In this film most of America is an irradiate wasteland and 
there is one huge city of 800 million on the east coast running from 
Boston to DC.  This is wonderfully rendered in the movie.  People live 
like sardines in huge high rises known as "mega cities".  Dredd (coolly 
played by Karl Urban)  is a cop/jury/executioner (a fascist or 
authoritarian concept) patrolling the streets.  He gets assigned a young 
woman trainee who has psychic abilities.  They get hemmed up in one of 
the mega cities run by "Ma-Ma", a crime boss played by Lena Headey.

This film has a lot of action and some wonderful special effects. They 
developed a camera that could do 3000 frames a second which gives some 
spectacular special effects.  The film is rated "Really NOT for Buck" or 
any other tender FFL denizen due to it's bloody nature (realistically 
done) and what bodies look like when they fall off a building from a 
high distance (you may have seen some of the pictures of bodies like 
that from 9/11 and you won't forget them).

I'm going to keep an eye out for the BD on sale used at Rasputin's. The 
dystopian future depicted could very well happen.  The extras are also 
well worth a watch since they give a background on the comic ("2000 AD") 
, where the idea came from and interviews with the original artist.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Bhairitu]

On 02/17/2013 10:50 AM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 02/17/2013 08:13 AM, authfriend wrote:
> 
>>> You see, the point has to do with Bhairitu's phrase
>>> "treated as," meaning what TMers are taught--at least
>>> in my experience--which is a matter of fact, not
>>> opinion.
>> FWIW, we TM teachers always stressed the importance of being
>> regular and there were few exceptions to that
> Right, that was my experience as a student.
>
>> though some have claimed more have
>> been added over time.  I know TM'ers who get nervous if in a
>> situation that means they might miss a meditation.   And
>> finally I said "more devotional" not just "devotional" taking
>> the term abstractly in it being "like" a devotional practice
>> and not that it is one.
> Fine. I simply wanted to make the point that TM is not
> taught as a devotional practice, which is what it sounded
> as if you meant by "treated as more devotional" (i.e.,
> more devotional than Tantric meditation).
>
> You meant something more like "He's religious about
> brushing his teeth." ;-)

Have you been to a dentist lately?  I swear they now train the techs as 
if brushing and flossing is a religion. :-D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cargo cult

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > One of the strangest and saddest things I ever did see:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY
> 
> For something to give you a lighter approach to the 
> same subject, try to find Christopher Moore's "Island
> of the Sequined Love Nun." Hilarious. 
> 
> http://www.chrismoore.com/love_nun.html
>

Yep, sounds like a bit more fun! Real expensive on Amazon though,
I was hoping for a cheap hit. Shall try the local library.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My last attempt?

[Bhairitu]

On 02/17/2013 01:25 AM, card wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 02/16/2013 02:50 AM, card wrote:
>>> I might be wrong, but my impression is that FFL's "jyotish-freaks"
>>> seem very reluctant to take up challenges.
>>>
>>> So, this might be my last attempt at challenge youse, dear
>>> sidereal colleagues. What kind of person is this:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/66867356@N02/8478717778/in/photostream
>>>
>>>
>> Jeffery Dahmer was born on the 21st of May not the 20th.
>>
> OK. How does his being a (possible) serial killer show in his jyotish chart?

It doesn't though there is the story of K N Rao (one of my astrology 
teachers) seeing the blind chart proclaiming it was one of a 
psychopath.  Why?  Well for one thing malefic Mars conjunct the Moon 
(mind).There are other elements too but mainly you would be seeing 
someone who would have some difficulty in life.  However identifying a 
serial killer from a horoscope would be a little unfair and dangerous.  
Sorta like "pre-crime" because there would be some people with such a 
configuration where the problem might never manifest or just make them a 
bit temperamental maybe more so than the average person.

Since you are a western astrology kinda guy how do you see the chart 
from the western perspective especially after you have adjusted it for 
the correct date?  You May 20th chart was interesting because Moon and 
Mars were exactly conjunct.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Ravi Chivukula
wrote:

> Hey Barry baby - I read this article this morning - hoping this may
> somehow help you deal with the notions of defect, shame, weakness,
> inferiority you attach to being a woman -
> http://www.salon.com/2013/02/17/the_labia_pride_movement/


Nothing dramatically different from the traditional, conservative Indians
mind you.

Amma is fashioned as the eternal virgin, Kanyakumari - clearly a woman who
has sex, pees and/or menstruates is shameful, defective, weak and inferior
- you would have been a very good fit in Amma's cult.


>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
>> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
>> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
>> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
>> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
>> go more than a little batshit crazy.
>>
>> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
>> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
>> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our
>> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
>> to become invisible.
>>
>> Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it.
>>
>> Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
>> all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
>> subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
>> beings, men or women, depends in large part on how
>> sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
>> for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
>> stage and to one in which I knew without question
>> that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
>> would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface
>> appearance.
>>
>> And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
>> selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
>> so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
>> ability to actually *listen* to them when we're
>> talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
>> or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery
>> women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
>> as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily
>> sex objects.
>>
>> But women. That seems to be another story.
>>
>> Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
>> to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
>> and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react
>> angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
>> that they were no longer even in the running for being
>> considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them,
>> the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
>> conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
>> worth in this world is being considered a sexual object.
>>
>> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and
>> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
>> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
>> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
>> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
>> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
>> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
>>
>> Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
>> when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
>> the surprising percentage of women they have become
>> invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for
>> whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
>> the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
>> or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
>> invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
>> and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
>> year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
>> leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
>>
>> Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
>> that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
>> years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
>> a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
>> temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
>> ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
>> to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
>> DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
>> thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
>> sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
>> to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy."
>>
>> The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in
>> the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
>> esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
>> hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
>> scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more
>> attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers
>> have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas
>> are the playground of those who have grown more w

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[Ravi Chivukula]

Hey Barry baby - I read this article this morning - hoping this may somehow
help you deal with the notions of defect, shame, weakness, inferiority you
attach to being a woman -
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/17/the_labia_pride_movement/

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:35 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

> **
>
>
> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached
> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual
> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> go more than a little batshit crazy.
>
> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our
> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> to become invisible.
>
> Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it.
>
> Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> beings, men or women, depends in large part on how
> sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> stage and to one in which I knew without question
> that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface
> appearance.
>
> And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> ability to actually *listen* to them when we're
> talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery
> women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily
> sex objects.
>
> But women. That seems to be another story.
>
> Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react
> angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> that they were no longer even in the running for being
> considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them,
> the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> worth in this world is being considered a sexual object.
>
> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and
> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
>
> Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> the surprising percentage of women they have become
> invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for
> whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
>
> Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy."
>
> The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in
> the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more
> attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers
> have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas
> are the playground of those who have grown more wise."
>
> I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
> days you've gotten to see examples of the opposite -- women
> who like to think of themselves as strong, independent
> feminists but who go batshit crazy the moment someone
> suggests that they are not fuckable. And who then channel
> that batshitcrazinessitude into trying to portray the person
> who suggested such a thing as somehow "sexually impaired"
> themselves. And, of cour

[FairfieldLife] light water reactor

[doctordumbass]

Here's something to enjoy the day with - it likes loud. Happy Almost Spring!! 
Guaranteed to get the dogs next door barking.

light water reactor (3:49)

https://www.box.com/s/uf0uaswmrvs5h80nngy7

(c) T-dog 
2013

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

Damn!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Sounds like the turq had a crush on you when he thought you may have been a 
> woman, and when you changed names, his deepest feelings began to feel the 
> strength of your posts and he became unattached to your gender and will 
> accept you any way you are, Doctor Du. M. Bass.

**Ha-Ha!! Well he's just gonna HAVE TO get in line behind all the othas - Speak 
to the hand, Bee.
> 
> I believe you and your wife must be attractive, Doc. 
>  I know many people who keep their irresistible charm and sexy character into 
> the times of late, and Auth and I know both, Christopher Plummer is still on 
> the desire list.  
> Lots of men would still be happy to hump on Sophia Loren. I would, if I was a 
> man. LOL
> 
> If one keeps friends with old true lover's, these too find a place in the 
> later time in life. When bridges were never burned, Turq. Some of us, do not 
> need to find, "new." Poor thing, you have to keep searching for an aura to 
> park your willy in the take out only parking space.
>  
**Yeah, my love and I been together for 17 years, married for 6 - We've been 
through the wringer, and back, but are both fundamentally truthful to ourselves 
and each other, and have weathered everything and are happy, content, and 
peaceful, and creative and funny. 

Much of our time, I am coming up with jokes, and she is singing, and joking 
back. Easier than the champagne with tequila chaser fueled dance marathons 
downtown we used to do, and nearly as much fun!! Maybe more...

> It is too bad the Turq has not kept any sexuality present in the visual of 
> his aging self. Good thing there is a time called, night, when the lights can 
> go out and stillness exists, the apprehensive prostitute would also ask that 
> he wear duct tape over his lips to complete his/her project.

**If it was ME, I'd want him hog-tied, wearing a Ronald Reagan mask, just for 
the hell of it. 
> 
> Turq, flirting is fun. Do you know what fun is?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. 
> > > You comparing me to a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - 
> > > Not because I don't recognize my feminine side, but its 
> > > like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no 
> > > thank you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.
> > 
> > This is somewhat rich coming from the guy who pretended
> > to be a woman named enlightened_dawn11 on this forum 
> > for some time, n'est-ce pas?  :-)
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > > > did I not?  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > > > have.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > > > appearance. 
> > > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cargo cult

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> One of the strangest and saddest things I ever did see:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY

For something to give you a lighter approach to the 
same subject, try to find Christopher Moore's "Island
of the Sequined Love Nun." Hilarious. 

http://www.chrismoore.com/love_nun.html

[FairfieldLife] Cargo cult

[salyavin808]

One of the strangest and saddest things I ever did see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWjGwBpLZdY

[FairfieldLife] Djesus Uncrossed

[turquoiseb]

For those who had begun to believe that Saturday Night
Live had gone all wussy and lost its edge, the Jesus
story, as directed by Quentin Tarantino:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP3wrQncuSI

[FairfieldLife] Repealing TM's Anti-Saint Policies

[Buck]

Repealing TM's anti-saint policies it seems has terribly strong parallels to 
the context of the 18th Amendment 'Repeal Movement' in the 20th Century.  Take 
a look at this short piece on Pauline Sabin of the movement to repeal the 18th 
amendment:  A theme of the undoing of the 'dry's' from early was their own 
self-destruct of unbending policies in the face of a reality.   Sort of like 
TM's movement administration trying to restrict and prohibit its own people 
from visiting other saints and holy people and only relying on its own TM 
teachers and consultants.

As comparison critique this is a thought provoking documentary on Pauline Sabin 
and the movement to repeal the 18th Amendment, Have a look:   
   

http://www.wgbh.org/programs/Baseball-The-Tenth-Inning-1199/episodes/Women-of-PROHIBITION-Pauline-Sabin-34763



> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that
> > > > > > he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder
> > > > > > what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long,
> > > > > > and to so many?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a really tough question. That could easily be someone's
scholarly thesis topic alone on Fairfield. How meditators have dealt with the
deceit and moral dissonance of their leadership. That became more directly
addressed in a series of posts by a range of old meditators writing on FFL
between Christmas and New Year's a month ago. It was really interesting to read
how different people resolved their relationship with the Tmo.
> > > > >

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> Back then it seems the problems were more simply over the money, fund-raising 
> technique and the anti-saint policy that were driving people away.
> 
> >
> > Even Back then there were yet some lot of 'unknowns' like the women to be 
> > discovered.  
> > 
> > > > Surveying the old [meditating] community,  The old survey that was done 
> > > > is archived here in the FFL files section.  It is real interesting 
> > > > trend-reading to look at now.  Things  were in motion then even back in 
> > > > the '90's and early '00's and yet still unresolved now.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Look in the 'files' section under the folder "FFL and Fairfield 
> > > Community"  about surveys.  To be able to read the survey results here 
> > > you got to be a registered yahoo groups FFL member to open the files.
> > >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm very glad that Rajaram is a householder. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Are you glad that he lied about it to pretty much 
> > > > > > > everyone in the TM movement for many years, including
> > > > > > > his close friends like John Hagelin? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It makes the TMO more human somehow, more of the world 
> > > > > > > > with all its joys and sorrows, more connected to life 
> > > > > > > > with all its light and dark.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yeah, you say this NOW, now that it's come out that
> > > > > > > he is married and has been for many years. But I wonder
> > > > > > > what excuses you make for him lying about it for so long,
> > > > > > > and to so many?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That is a really tough question.  That could easily be someone's 
> > > > > > scholarly thesis topic alone on Fairfield.  How meditators have 
> > > > > > dealt with the deceit and moral dissonance of their leadership.  
> > > > > > That became more directly addressed in a series of posts by a range 
> > > > > > of old meditators writing on FFL between Christmas and New Year's a 
> > > > > > month ago.  It was really interesting to read how different people 
> > > > > > resolved their relationship with the Tmo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Surveying the [meditating] community.
> > > > >   
> > > > > I'm betting there is at least one PhD thesis waiting to happen around 
> > > > > this [morality] topic or at least a scholarly paper.   It would proly 
> > > > > be timely anyway to have a new survey of this done independently now 
> > > > > for the benefit of the meditating community.   Back about 15 years 
> > > > > ago some smart people created an independent survey of the Fairfield 
> > > > > meditating community then.  Seems morality was the same problem then 
> > > > > it is today with leadership..A  new survey enlarged around these 
> > > > > topics of moral complexity could be telling with some evident policy 
> > > > > recommendations particularly for how th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sounds pretty much like the TMO to me...

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Pope Benedict XVI's leaked documents show fractured Vatican 
> full of rivalries
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/pope-benedict-xvis-leaked-documents-show-fractured-vatican-full-of-rivalries/2013/02/16/23ce0280-76c2-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

In any large organizations, there is bound to be rivalries and politics to get 
what you want.  But you would hope that the people in the Vatican would have a 
higher level of consciousness to do what is right for the church.



> 
> Still on the subject of the Pope, I loved Bill Maher's 
> comment on the Papal resignation:
> 
> "Hey Catholics, if the Pope can quit, so can you."  :-)

Maher doesn't know anything.  He's got a shtick to keep himself employed.  But 
the answer to his question is:  "Then, what?"

  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 02/17/2013 08:13 AM, authfriend wrote:

> > You see, the point has to do with Bhairitu's phrase
> > "treated as," meaning what TMers are taught--at least
> > in my experience--which is a matter of fact, not
> > opinion.
> 
> FWIW, we TM teachers always stressed the importance of being 
> regular and there were few exceptions to that

Right, that was my experience as a student.

> though some have claimed more have 
> been added over time.  I know TM'ers who get nervous if in a 
> situation that means they might miss a meditation.   And
> finally I said "more devotional" not just "devotional" taking
> the term abstractly in it being "like" a devotional practice
> and not that it is one.

Fine. I simply wanted to make the point that TM is not
taught as a devotional practice, which is what it sounded
as if you meant by "treated as more devotional" (i.e.,
more devotional than Tantric meditation).

You meant something more like "He's religious about
brushing his teeth." ;-)







  Furthermore it 
> appears like that to people on other paths who are in awe or admire it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.... the sultry subject of sex

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> no dearest merudanda, the Under the Tuscon Sun fountain scene is at 1:31:23. 
>  Approximately (-:
> Patience is not the strong suit of pure pitta person.  Will do my best. 
> Also dizzyness and nausea and chills happening today.  Am dealing with onset 
> of flu?  

Been gulping down double strong licorice root tea for sore 
throat..to no avail. Gonna have some pasta now with the daughter.  
Maybe that will help.

Just shopped for helpful food, chamomile tea, etc.
> As always thank you for all, especially what you are...
> ...seem to be (-:
> It's all just an ocean of love with all these currents in it.
> I love to swim in the current that you are...
> ...seem to be (-:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: merudanda 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:23 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the 
> sultry subject of sex
>  
> 
>   
> Is it this scene?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GnYPGwXHsTU#t=2468s
>  
> http://tinyurl.com/bg7gvjn 
> 
> Wonder if you patient enough to take your time to make a journey into the 
> world of  fantasies I found at YouTube, a world from which we may never 
> return -breathing like the ones in the old stories conceived out of nowhere 
> but in this place beginning to lead everywhere. 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKF7Kqlbrk 
> Requesting
>  to stop what you are doing right now,
> and to stop what you are becoming while you do it,...
> Who could cross a shimmering bed of dry leaves without a sound..?
> good night
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  
> wrote:>> And in a wonderful example of making
>  homage and or cinematic self reflexivity, the Anita Ekberg character and 
> fountain scene are both recreated in the delightful memoir Under the Tuscan 
> Sun.  Sorry couldn't find the scene on youtube.  > > Thanks to 
> both bhairitu and merudanda for writing about movies in such an erudite 
> way.  Helps me appreciate the medium even more.> > > > 
> >  From: merudanda 
> no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 
> Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:59 AM> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Poor Anita 
> Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the sultry subject of sex>  > > 
>   > Since it seems some at FFL likes it hot> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3bBNUgENg > Poor Anita Ekberg! Her 
> Vida is not
>  Dolce.> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077470/Penniless-screen-legend-Anita-Ekberg-80-appeals-financial-help-hitting-hard-times.htmlÂÂ
>  > and she makes a living now in giving interviews and taking part in 
> workshop like the one at the Berlinale Talent Campus  during the 63rd 
> Berlin International Film Festival which gather the most promising emerging 
> filmmakers and bring them together with seasoned filmmakers and industry 
> experts .Peter Cowie talked with the legendary Swedish film icon Anita 
> Ekberg  about the start of her film career (La Dolce Vita, Boccaccio '70, 
> 4 for Texas etc)and her notable work with renowned directors Federico 
> Fellini, Robert Aldrich, and Gerd Oswald.> Dutch-American filmmaker Paul 
> Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Black Book)for example  kicked off the Campus 
> program by sharing his film-making experiences, elaborating on how one should 
> follow one's instincts during
>  the process of film-making. > Could be that turquoisb  et al  took 
> part in the session "Some Like It Hotâ€"The Power of Sex", where 
> writer-director-actors Hagar Ben Asher (The Slut) and John Cameron Mitchell 
> (Shortbus)  discussed how they use the sultry subject of sex to not only 
> steam up the screen but make incisive critiques about society?> > One 
> of the most influential and popular works by Federico Fellini, LA DOLCE VITA 
> follows the "sweet life" of a tabloid journalist (Marcello Mastroianni) who 
> covers the glitzy show business life in Rome but OTOH want  to become a 
> "serious writer". In constant search for the next big scandal, he is 
> continually seduced by the decadent life led by Rome's pampered rich."It was 
> a moment that marked a turning point in postwar Europe: Anita Ekberg wading 
> through the Fontana di Trevi in Federico Fellini's film La Dolce Vita, as 
> improbably voluptuous as
>  the fountain itself. La Dolce Vita was shot in 1960, and while Ekberg's 
> low-cut, dark evening dress may look back to the formal 50s, her insouciant 
> transgression points unmistakably ahead, into the subversive 60s.> > 
> What few cinema-goers realized was that the scene in the film was a 
> reconstruction of a real event. Two years earlier, Ekberg had spent the 
> evening with a set photographer, Pierluigi Praturlon, at the Rancho Grande 
> nightclub in Rome. To ease her aching feet on the way home, she climbed into 
> the

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[obbajeeba]

Sounds like the turq had a crush on you when he thought you may have been a 
woman, and when you changed names, his deepest feelings began to feel the 
strength of your posts and he became unattached to your gender and will accept 
you any way you are, Doctor Du. M. Bass.

I believe you and your wife must be attractive, Doc. 
 I know many people who keep their irresistible charm and sexy character into 
the times of late, and Auth and I know both, Christopher Plummer is still on 
the desire list.  
Lots of men would still be happy to hump on Sophia Loren. I would, if I was a 
man. LOL

If one keeps friends with old true lover's, these too find a place in the later 
time in life. When bridges were never burned, Turq. Some of us, do not need to 
find, "new." Poor thing, you have to keep searching for an aura to park your 
willy in the take out only parking space.
 

It is too bad the Turq has not kept any sexuality present in the visual of his 
aging self. Good thing there is a time called, night, when the lights can go 
out and stillness exists, the apprehensive prostitute would also ask that he 
wear duct tape over his lips to complete his/her project. 

Turq, flirting is fun. Do you know what fun is?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. 
> > You comparing me to a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - 
> > Not because I don't recognize my feminine side, but its 
> > like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no 
> > thank you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.
> 
> This is somewhat rich coming from the guy who pretended
> to be a woman named enlightened_dawn11 on this forum 
> for some time, n'est-ce pas?  :-)
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > > did I not?  :-)
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > > 
> > > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > > have.
> > > > 
> > > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > > appearance. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > > > > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > > > > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > > > > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > > > > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > > > > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > > > > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > > > > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > > > > sex objects. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > > > > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > > > > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > > > > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > > > > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Bhairitu]

On 02/17/2013 08:13 AM, authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>>> 
 Regarding meditation, my late tantra guru always said "if you
 don't feel like meditating then don't because nothing will be
 gained from the meditation."  In TM it was treated more
 devotional and skipping frowned on.
>>> FWIW, I never heard there was anything "devotional" about
>>> doing TM regularly.
>> Doing TM regularly - quite obviously with zeal - means to
>> devote ones time to it:
> Right. But that isn't what the adjective "devotional"
> means. In English, you can't always assume one form
> of a term has exactly the same meanings as another
> form.
>
> (In any case, Bhairitu should have used the adverb
> "devotionally" rather than the adjective "devotional.")
>
> And "zeal" is not necessarily applicable either.
>
>> de·vote  (d-vt)
>> tr.v. de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing, de·votes
>>
>> 1. To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a 
>> particular activity, pursuit, cause, or person.
>> 2. To set apart for a specific purpose or use: land devoted to mining.
>> ...
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devote
>>
>> In the above definitely #1 is applicable
> Right. But it isn't clear that's what Bhairitu meant by
> it (and of course "entirely" wouldn't apply to something
> one does twice a day for 20 minutes).
>
>> devotion [dɪˈvəʊʃən]
>> n
>> 1. (often foll by to) strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, 
>> person, etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty
>> 2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) religious zeal; piety
>> 3. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (often plural) religious observance 
>> or prayers
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devotion
>>
>> #1 is applicable here, as in TM there is an attachment to the
>> practice . In part also #3.
> Bhairitu may have meant #1, in the sense of being dedicated
> to regular practice, just as one might be said to be
> dedicated to brushing one's teeth twice a day whether one
> feels like it or not. If he meant #3--this was my point--
> that's not what I was taught.
>   
>>> It was supposedly a matter of the
>>> effect on the physiology, like the standard (not just in
>>> TM) recommendation to eat and go to bed at regular times.
>> Non sequitur.
> Not at all. You've completely missed my point, which had
> to do with what I was taught was the reason it was
> important not to miss meditations.
>
>>> TM was also compared to brushing your teeth. It wouldn't
>>> make any sense to say, "If you don't feel like brushing
>>> your teeth then don't because nothing will be gained
>>> from brushing them."
>> Well, there is a difference of opinion here. It's obvious,
>> that while some people get out a lot of their meditations,
>> there are others that don't - for example Ann, and yet
>> others who are mostly daydreaming or dozing.
> In the TM context, I was taught that it didn't matter
> whether one felt one was getting a lot out of one's
> meditation--it was doing one good regardless, as long
> as one was practicing according to the instructions
> (including being regular).
>
> You see, the point has to do with Bhairitu's phrase
> "treated as," meaning what TMers are taught--at least
> in my experience--which is a matter of fact, not
> opinion.
>
>


FWIW, we TM teachers always stressed the importance of being regular and 
there were few exceptions to that though some have claimed more have 
been added over time.  I know TM'ers who get nervous if in a situation 
that means they might miss a meditation.   And finally I said "more 
devotional" not just "devotional" taking the term abstractly in it being 
"like" a devotional practice and not that it is one.  Furthermore it 
appears like that to people on other paths who are in awe or admire it.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.... the sultry subject of sex

[Share Long]

no dearest merudanda, the Under the Tuscon Sun fountain scene is at 1:31:23.  
Approximately (-:
Patience is not the strong suit of pure pitta person.  Will do my best. 
Also dizzyness and nausea and chills happening today.  Am dealing with onset of 
flu?  Just shopped for helpful food, chamomile tea, etc.
As always thank you for all, especially what you are...
...seem to be (-:
It's all just an ocean of love with all these currents in it.
I love to swim in the current that you are...
...seem to be (-:






 From: merudanda 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the 
sultry subject of sex
 

  
Is it this scene?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GnYPGwXHsTU#t=2468s
 
http://tinyurl.com/bg7gvjn 

Wonder if you patient enough to take your time to make a journey into the world 
of  fantasies I found at YouTube, a world from which we may never return 
-breathing like the ones in the old stories conceived out of nowhere but in 
this place beginning to lead everywhere. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKF7Kqlbrk 
Requesting
 to stop what you are doing right now,
and to stop what you are becoming while you do it,...
Who could cross a shimmering bed of dry leaves without a sound..?
good night

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  
wrote:>> And in a wonderful example of making
 homage and or cinematic self reflexivity, the Anita Ekberg character and 
fountain scene are both recreated in the delightful memoir Under the Tuscan 
Sun.  Sorry couldn't find the scene on youtube.  > > Thanks to both 
bhairitu and merudanda for writing about movies in such an erudite way.  Helps 
me appreciate the medium even more.> > > > 
>  From: merudanda 
no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 
Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:59 AM> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Poor Anita 
Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the sultry subject of sex>  > >  
 > Since it seems some at FFL likes it hot> 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3bBNUgENg > Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida 
is not
 Dolce.> 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077470/Penniless-screen-legend-Anita-Ekberg-80-appeals-financial-help-hitting-hard-times.htmlÂ
 > and she makes a living now in giving interviews and taking part in 
workshop like the one at the Berlinale Talent Campus  during the 63rd Berlin 
International Film Festival which gather the most promising emerging filmmakers 
and bring them together with seasoned filmmakers and industry experts .Peter 
Cowie talked with the legendary Swedish film icon Anita Ekberg  about the 
start of her film career (La Dolce Vita, Boccaccio '70, 4 for Texas etc)and her 
notable work with renowned directors Federico Fellini, Robert Aldrich, and Gerd 
Oswald.> Dutch-American filmmaker Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Black 
Book)for example  kicked off the Campus program by sharing his film-making 
experiences, elaborating on how one should follow one's instincts during
 the process of film-making. > Could be that turquoisb  et al  took part 
in the session "Some Like It Hotâ€"The Power of Sex", where 
writer-director-actors Hagar Ben Asher (The Slut) and John Cameron Mitchell 
(Shortbus)  discussed how they use the sultry subject of sex to not only steam 
up the screen but make incisive critiques about society?> > One of the 
most influential and popular works by Federico Fellini, LA DOLCE VITA follows 
the "sweet life" of a tabloid journalist (Marcello Mastroianni) who covers the 
glitzy show business life in Rome but OTOH want  to become a "serious writer". 
In constant search for the next big scandal, he is continually seduced by the 
decadent life led by Rome's pampered rich."It was a moment that marked a 
turning point in postwar Europe: Anita Ekberg wading through the Fontana di 
Trevi in Federico Fellini's film La Dolce Vita, as improbably voluptuous as
 the fountain itself. La Dolce Vita was shot in 1960, and while Ekberg's 
low-cut, dark evening dress may look back to the formal 50s, her insouciant 
transgression points unmistakably ahead, into the subversive 60s.> > 
What few cinema-goers realized was that the scene in the film was a 
reconstruction of a real event. Two years earlier, Ekberg had spent the evening 
with a set photographer, Pierluigi Praturlon, at the Rancho Grande nightclub in 
Rome. To ease her aching feet on the way home, she climbed into the fountain. 
Praturlon, who never went anywhere without his Leica, lit up the scene with the 
headlights of his car and caught the moment in a photograph that Fellini later 
saw in a magazine, Tempo Illustrato."> > "When the film was presented 
in New York, the distributor reproduced the fountain scene on a billboard as 
high as a skyscraper. My name was in the middle in huge letters, Fellini's was 
at the
 bottom, very tiny. Now the name of

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sounds pretty much like the TMO to me...

[merudanda]

mmmh
"Unlike parish priests, who have the personal rewards that come with
everyday contact, their lot is not as human. It's bureaucratic, but
it  becomes all-consuming."
May he enjoy his retirement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=378fNu_UPbA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGrUAA_tIgs



- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
wrote:>> Pope Benedict XVI's leaked documents show fractured
Vatican > full of rivalries> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/pope-benedict-xvis-leaked-\
documents-show-fractured-vatican-full-of-rivalries/2013/02/16/23ce0280-7\
6c2-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html> > Still on the subject of
the Pope, I loved Bill Maher's > comment on the Papal
resignation:> > "Hey Catholics, if the Pope can quit, so can
you."  :-)>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ann]

Don't you just love it when the first word of your post is a typo?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Will you be my relationship coach, pretty please?? LOL
> 
> Al lyou have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, red and white 
> make pink, blue and brown make purple and so on. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > > > in their heads. 
> > > > 
> > > > Great post Barry. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
> > > tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
> > > colored glasses. :-)
> > > 
> > > > As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > > > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> > > > desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> > > > ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
> > > for a while described interpersonal interactions as
> > > "touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
> > > yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
> > > Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
> > > aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
> > > intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
> > > involved with them. 
> > > 
> > > Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
> > > about the nature of relationships, I still like the
> > > "merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
> > > blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.
> > > 
> > > A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
> > > individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
> > > ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
> > > "color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
> > > put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
> > > your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
> > > concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
> > > in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
> > > their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
> > > and you suddenly have a third color, green. 
> > > 
> > > That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
> > > and why one should never blame the other party if a 
> > > relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
> > > merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
> > > isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
> > > having relationships is just in recognizing when the
> > > aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
> > > ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.
> > > 
> > > Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
> > > think he might have been onto something with this
> > > metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
> > > Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
> > > Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
> > > CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
> > > sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
> > > way. 
> > > 
> > > But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
> > > and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
> > > Learning to recognize such things before they even
> > > start, that can be even more valuable. :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Will you be my relationship coach, pretty please?? LOL

Al lyou have to remember is that blue and yellow make green, red and white make 
pink, blue and brown make purple and so on. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > > in their heads. 
> > > 
> > > Great post Barry. 
> > 
> > Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
> > tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
> > colored glasses. :-)
> > 
> > > As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> > > desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> > > ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
> > 
> > Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
> > for a while described interpersonal interactions as
> > "touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
> > yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
> > Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
> > aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
> > intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
> > involved with them. 
> > 
> > Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
> > about the nature of relationships, I still like the
> > "merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
> > blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.
> > 
> > A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
> > individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
> > ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
> > "color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
> > put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
> > your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
> > concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
> > in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
> > their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
> > and you suddenly have a third color, green. 
> > 
> > That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
> > and why one should never blame the other party if a 
> > relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
> > merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
> > isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
> > having relationships is just in recognizing when the
> > aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
> > ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.
> > 
> > Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
> > think he might have been onto something with this
> > metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
> > Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
> > Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
> > CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
> > sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
> > way. 
> > 
> > But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
> > and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
> > Learning to recognize such things before they even
> > start, that can be even more valuable. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Sounds pretty much like the TMO to me...

[turquoiseb]

Pope Benedict XVI's leaked documents show fractured Vatican 
full of rivalries

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/pope-benedict-xvis-leaked-documents-show-fractured-vatican-full-of-rivalries/2013/02/16/23ce0280-76c2-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

Still on the subject of the Pope, I loved Bill Maher's 
comment on the Papal resignation:

"Hey Catholics, if the Pope can quit, so can you."  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> 
> > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > in their heads. 
> 
> Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's not 
> just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, well 
> Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
>
Nav, for your sake, I hope you can get off this wheel of rebirth as quickly as 
possible, cuz it sounds like it's a little taxing.  On the other hand, maybe 
you aspire to be Shankara's greatest hero.  Don't know if you are familiar with 
that quote.  But yea, probably best to stay away from women.  Wouldn't want to 
get any coodies.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.... the sultry subject of sex

[merudanda]

Is it this scene?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GnYPGwXHsTU#t=2\
468s


http://tinyurl.com/bg7gvjn 

Wonder if you patient enough to take your time to make a journey into
the world of  fantasies I found at YouTube, a world from which we may
never return -breathing like the ones in the old stories conceived out
of nowhere but in this place beginning to lead everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGKF7Kqlbrk

Requesting
  to stop what you are doing right now,
and to stop what you are becoming while you do it,...
Who could cross a shimmering bed of dry leaves without a sound..?
good night

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:>> And in a wonderful example of making homage and or
cinematic self reflexivity, the Anita Ekberg character and fountain
scene are both recreated in the delightful memoir Under the Tuscan
Sun.  Sorry couldn't find the scene on youtube.  > >
Thanks to both bhairitu and merudanda for writing about movies in such
an erudite way.  Helps me appreciate the medium even more.>
> > > >  From: merudanda
no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:59 AM> Subject: [FairfieldLife]
Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the sultry subject of
sex>  > > Â  > Since it seems some at FFL likes it
hot> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3bBNUgENg > Poor Anita
Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077470/Penniless-screen-legend-\
Anita-Ekberg-80-appeals-financial-help-hitting-hard-times.html >
and she makes a living now in giving interviews and taking part in
workshop like the one at the Berlinale Talent Campus  during the
63rd Berlin International Film Festival which gather the most promising
emerging filmmakers and bring them together with seasoned filmmakers and
industry experts .Peter Cowie talked with the legendary Swedish film
icon Anita Ekberg  about the start of her film career (La Dolce
Vita, Boccaccio '70, 4 for Texas etc)and her notable work with renowned
directors Federico Fellini, Robert Aldrich, and Gerd Oswald.>
Dutch-American filmmaker Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Black Book)for
example  kicked off the Campus program by sharing his film-making
experiences, elaborating on how one should follow one's instincts during
the process of film-making. > Could be that turquoisb  et alÂ
took part in the session "Some Like It Hotâ€"The Power of Sex",
where writer-director-actors Hagar Ben Asher (The Slut) and John Cameron
Mitchell (Shortbus)Â  discussed how they use the sultry subject of
sex to not only steam up the screen but make incisive critiques about
society?> > One of the most influential and popular works by
Federico Fellini, LA DOLCE VITA follows the "sweet life" of a tabloid
journalist (Marcello Mastroianni) who covers the glitzy show business
life in Rome but OTOH want  to become a "serious writer". In
constant search for the next big scandal, he is continually seduced by
the decadent life led by Rome's pampered rich."It was a moment that
marked a turning point in postwar Europe: Anita Ekberg wading through
the Fontana di Trevi in Federico Fellini's film La Dolce Vita, as
improbably voluptuous as the fountain itself. La Dolce Vita was shot in
1960, and while Ekberg's low-cut, dark evening dress may look back to
the formal 50s, her insouciant transgression points unmistakably ahead,
into the subversive 60s.> > What few cinema-goers realized was
that the scene in the film was a reconstruction of a real event. Two
years earlier, Ekberg had spent the evening with a set photographer,
Pierluigi Praturlon, at the Rancho Grande nightclub in Rome. To ease her
aching feet on the way home, she climbed into the fountain. Praturlon,
who never went anywhere without his Leica, lit up the scene with the
headlights of his car and caught the moment in a photograph that Fellini
later saw in a magazine, Tempo Illustrato."> > "When the film
was presented in New York, the distributor reproduced the fountain scene
on a billboard as high as a skyscraper. My name was in the middle in
huge letters, Fellini's was at the bottom, very tiny. Now the name of
Fellini has become very great, mine very little." (Anita Ekberg)>
> "It was I who made Fellini famous, not the other way around".
(Anita Ekberg)> On 12 December 1994, Dutch TROS television
broadcasted this interview with Anita Ekberg, who became world famous
when she baded in the Trevi foundation in Federico Fellini's "La Dolce
Vita"actually filmed in March, when nights were still cold(According to
Federico Fellini (in an interview with Costanzo Costantini), Anita
Ekberg stood in the cold water in her dress for hours ). The interview
is made by Ivo Niehe for his television show De TV-show (Dutch or
English spoken, Dutch subtitles).>
http

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Carol]

Cluck, cluck. Corn(stalk), Corn(stalk). ;)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 1:28 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Tantra will get back to you drama queens and your humiliating
> > > pile-ons, these get-Barry fests and get-Barry orgies.
> >
> > Why do you think I posted what I did at the end of last week and
> > the beginning of this one? A few posts calculated to push buttons,
> > and then I can just sit back and watch people demonstrate to the
> > lurkers how attached and reactive they are.  :-)
> >
> 
> Yes these women - they can't help being reactive, drama queens, all of them
> - Obba, Ann, Emily, Rauchy, Judy. I just tolerate them because
> they praise me you know - wink, wink - why don't they recognize that they
> are just stupid c#nts as you rightly put it, and that new cyber-stalker
> chick Carol - they get threatened by a real man like you.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Carol]

Sweet. :)

My daughter is still in college. I think it she could, she'd make a career out 
of being a student. Ha! That said, I do hope she continues as a lifelong 
learner. 

What is your daughter studying, if you don't mind me asking and if she wouldn't 
mind you sharing?

Both my children were home schooled (through I prefer the term eclectic 
schooled) from birth thru high school. I hope I didn't damage them too much. 
Haha. And I hope they picked up on being life-long learners. Never too old... :)

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Turned out to be Proseco, but, yeah she had a good time. We had lunch 
> yesterday - She is in her final year of school, so studying like a maniac, 
> and then party time on weekends, so she had been up 'til 4:30 and sort of 
> tired, but always fun to see her.  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
> >
> > *chuckle* They sound like lots of fun!!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Reminded me of yesterday when I called my daughter, who lives in San 
> > > Francisco, and asked her what she was doing for Valentine's Day, and she 
> > > said she was going out to dinner with three girlfriends, and then added 
> > > matter-of-factly that they were going to pretend to be lesbian couples, 
> > > to get the free champagne. 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Ann!  
> > > > > He sounds depressed because he watches two women give to one man and 
> > > > > they ain't inviting him in!  He waits for a rebound bonk, but will 
> > > > > not be successful. Poor guy. heh
> > > > 
> > > > Oh Obba, are you flirting with me? Watch out 'cuz it just might get me 
> > > > going and then couldn't we just give Barry an eyeful, that is if we'd 
> > > > let him watch, which I highly doubt. Now get going you little 
> > > > sassy-pants, no more of your lip for today - I'd like you to save them 
> > > > both for me tomorrow.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your comments are hilarious Ann!! Barry is not making much sense 
> > > > > > here, granted. He seems to focus on the very worst prejudices in 
> > > > > > others, and take that as the basis for argument. Sounds depressed. 
> > > > > > Hope you had a great Valentines Day! 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, baby, free love if you let me. Lick that extra 
> > > > > > > > > wet lick lick lick your face and all. Oh, don't forget 
> > > > > > > > > that rubber! Hey, give me a full physical for everyone 
> > > > > > > > > who swings and I will be a millionaire! 
> > > > > > > > > Did you know that venereal disease is pretty common 
> > > > > > > > > among the aging population? They like to wank the wong 
> > > > > > > > > to barren wombs of the love canal! No pregnancy and 
> > > > > > > > > viagra..whoopie! 
> > > > > > > > > If it ain't good enough, time to wonder what her snatch 
> > > > > > > > > feels like..and hers and his is bigger and turns to the 
> > > > > > > > > left a bit more..
> > > > > > > > > Good for you my ass. It means you are fucking bored with 
> > > > > > > > > your partner. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I shall allow this idiocy to stand on its own as an
> > > > > > > > example of why obba has never succeeded in her attempts 
> > > > > > > > to flirt with guys on FFL. Who could even *imagine* 
> > > > > > > > getting it on with someone that ignorant?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Whoa, why the extreme reaction here Barry? Did you know that 
> > > > > > > there are ways to address a difference of opinion with reason, 
> > > > > > > class, openness and diplomacy? Yes indeed, it's true.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Instead I'll focus in one of my last posts for the 
> > > > > > > > week on the excellent article that Alex found and 
> > > > > > > > posted. It's about bloody time that someone did some 
> > > > > > > > real studies on polyamorous relationships, to help 
> > > > > > > > overcome the idiotic ideas that monogomaphobes have 
> > > > > > > > about them. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We get the picture, anyone who is a monogomaphobe (which, of 
> > > > > > > course is not even close to being a real word) is an "idiot". Oh, 
> > > > > > > and you are about to enlighten all of us on why and how open 
> > > > > > > minded and enlightened you are on the subject. Let's take a look:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Living as I do as a non-involved fly on the wall in 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. 
> You comparing me to a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - 
> Not because I don't recognize my feminine side, but its 
> like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no 
> thank you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.

This is somewhat rich coming from the guy who pretended
to be a woman named enlightened_dawn11 on this forum 
for some time, n'est-ce pas?  :-)

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > did I not?  :-)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > 
> > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > have.
> > > 
> > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > 
> > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > 
> > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > appearance. 
> > > > 
> > > > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > > > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > > > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > > > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > > > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > > > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > > > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > > > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > > > sex objects. 
> > > > 
> > > > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > > > 
> > > > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > > > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > > > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > > > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > > > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > > > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> > > > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > > > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > > > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> > > > 
> > > > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> > > > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > > > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > > > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > > > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > > > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > > > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > > > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > > > the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> > > > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> > > > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > > > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > > > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > > > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > > > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > > > year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> > > > leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Me, as I 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

Oops, I meant its like you want me to be your *girlfriend*, and yes, it still 
creeps me out...

Speaking of your sex life, just for our curiosity, what's the most you ever 
paid a prostitute for services? Did he or she double their fee, afterwards? If 
yes, why?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. You comparing me to 
> a woman kinda creeps me out Barry - Not because I don't recognize my feminine 
> side, but its like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no thank 
> you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> > did I not?  :-)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > > 
> > > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > > have.
> > > 
> > > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > > 
> > > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > > to become invisible. 
> > > > 
> > > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > > appearance. 
> > > > 
> > > > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > > > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > > > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > > > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > > > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > > > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > > > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > > > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > > > sex objects. 
> > > > 
> > > > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > > > 
> > > > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > > > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > > > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > > > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > > > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > > > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> > > > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > > > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > > > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> > > > 
> > > > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> > > > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > > > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > > > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > > > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > > > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > > > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > > > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > > > the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> > > > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> > > > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > > > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > > > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > > > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > > > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > > > year-old but o

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[doctordumbass]

Turned out to be Proseco, but, yeah she had a good time. We had lunch yesterday 
- She is in her final year of school, so studying like a maniac, and then party 
time on weekends, so she had been up 'til 4:30 and sort of tired, but always 
fun to see her.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
>
> *chuckle* They sound like lots of fun!!
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Reminded me of yesterday when I called my daughter, who lives in San 
> > Francisco, and asked her what she was doing for Valentine's Day, and she 
> > said she was going out to dinner with three girlfriends, and then added 
> > matter-of-factly that they were going to pretend to be lesbian couples, to 
> > get the free champagne. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Ann!  
> > > > He sounds depressed because he watches two women give to one man and 
> > > > they ain't inviting him in!  He waits for a rebound bonk, but will not 
> > > > be successful. Poor guy. heh
> > > 
> > > Oh Obba, are you flirting with me? Watch out 'cuz it just might get me 
> > > going and then couldn't we just give Barry an eyeful, that is if we'd let 
> > > him watch, which I highly doubt. Now get going you little sassy-pants, no 
> > > more of your lip for today - I'd like you to save them both for me 
> > > tomorrow.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your comments are hilarious Ann!! Barry is not making much sense 
> > > > > here, granted. He seems to focus on the very worst prejudices in 
> > > > > others, and take that as the basis for argument. Sounds depressed. 
> > > > > Hope you had a great Valentines Day! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh yeah, baby, free love if you let me. Lick that extra 
> > > > > > > > wet lick lick lick your face and all. Oh, don't forget 
> > > > > > > > that rubber! Hey, give me a full physical for everyone 
> > > > > > > > who swings and I will be a millionaire! 
> > > > > > > > Did you know that venereal disease is pretty common 
> > > > > > > > among the aging population? They like to wank the wong 
> > > > > > > > to barren wombs of the love canal! No pregnancy and 
> > > > > > > > viagra..whoopie! 
> > > > > > > > If it ain't good enough, time to wonder what her snatch 
> > > > > > > > feels like..and hers and his is bigger and turns to the 
> > > > > > > > left a bit more..
> > > > > > > > Good for you my ass. It means you are fucking bored with 
> > > > > > > > your partner. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I shall allow this idiocy to stand on its own as an
> > > > > > > example of why obba has never succeeded in her attempts 
> > > > > > > to flirt with guys on FFL. Who could even *imagine* 
> > > > > > > getting it on with someone that ignorant?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Whoa, why the extreme reaction here Barry? Did you know that there 
> > > > > > are ways to address a difference of opinion with reason, class, 
> > > > > > openness and diplomacy? Yes indeed, it's true.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Instead I'll focus in one of my last posts for the 
> > > > > > > week on the excellent article that Alex found and 
> > > > > > > posted. It's about bloody time that someone did some 
> > > > > > > real studies on polyamorous relationships, to help 
> > > > > > > overcome the idiotic ideas that monogomaphobes have 
> > > > > > > about them. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We get the picture, anyone who is a monogomaphobe (which, of course 
> > > > > > is not even close to being a real word) is an "idiot". Oh, and you 
> > > > > > are about to enlighten all of us on why and how open minded and 
> > > > > > enlightened you are on the subject. Let's take a look:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Living as I do as a non-involved fly on the wall in a
> > > > > > > polyamorous household, I have a more realistic picture
> > > > > > > of what is involved in nonmonogamous relationships than
> > > > > > > most. If there is a single word that characterizes the 
> > > > > > > successful ones I've seen, that word is *honesty*. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Oh, you are amazing. And what an original conclusion. "Honesty" 
> > > > > > who would have thought? And all this time I thought it was about 
> > > > > > how good looking the other partner was that kept a relationship 
> > > > > > intact.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It's not about the sex, or as the idiot above suggests,
> > > > > > > about being bored with one's partner. It's about having
> > > > > > > the freedom to have more than one partner if one is
> > > > > > > "drawn

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Carol]

*chuckle* They sound like lots of fun!!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Reminded me of yesterday when I called my daughter, who lives in San 
> Francisco, and asked her what she was doing for Valentine's Day, and she said 
> she was going out to dinner with three girlfriends, and then added 
> matter-of-factly that they were going to pretend to be lesbian couples, to 
> get the free champagne. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, Ann!  
> > > He sounds depressed because he watches two women give to one man and they 
> > > ain't inviting him in!  He waits for a rebound bonk, but will not be 
> > > successful. Poor guy. heh
> > 
> > Oh Obba, are you flirting with me? Watch out 'cuz it just might get me 
> > going and then couldn't we just give Barry an eyeful, that is if we'd let 
> > him watch, which I highly doubt. Now get going you little sassy-pants, no 
> > more of your lip for today - I'd like you to save them both for me tomorrow.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your comments are hilarious Ann!! Barry is not making much sense here, 
> > > > granted. He seems to focus on the very worst prejudices in others, and 
> > > > take that as the basis for argument. Sounds depressed. Hope you had a 
> > > > great Valentines Day! 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh yeah, baby, free love if you let me. Lick that extra 
> > > > > > > wet lick lick lick your face and all. Oh, don't forget 
> > > > > > > that rubber! Hey, give me a full physical for everyone 
> > > > > > > who swings and I will be a millionaire! 
> > > > > > > Did you know that venereal disease is pretty common 
> > > > > > > among the aging population? They like to wank the wong 
> > > > > > > to barren wombs of the love canal! No pregnancy and 
> > > > > > > viagra..whoopie! 
> > > > > > > If it ain't good enough, time to wonder what her snatch 
> > > > > > > feels like..and hers and his is bigger and turns to the 
> > > > > > > left a bit more..
> > > > > > > Good for you my ass. It means you are fucking bored with 
> > > > > > > your partner. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I shall allow this idiocy to stand on its own as an
> > > > > > example of why obba has never succeeded in her attempts 
> > > > > > to flirt with guys on FFL. Who could even *imagine* 
> > > > > > getting it on with someone that ignorant?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whoa, why the extreme reaction here Barry? Did you know that there 
> > > > > are ways to address a difference of opinion with reason, class, 
> > > > > openness and diplomacy? Yes indeed, it's true.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Instead I'll focus in one of my last posts for the 
> > > > > > week on the excellent article that Alex found and 
> > > > > > posted. It's about bloody time that someone did some 
> > > > > > real studies on polyamorous relationships, to help 
> > > > > > overcome the idiotic ideas that monogomaphobes have 
> > > > > > about them. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We get the picture, anyone who is a monogomaphobe (which, of course 
> > > > > is not even close to being a real word) is an "idiot". Oh, and you 
> > > > > are about to enlighten all of us on why and how open minded and 
> > > > > enlightened you are on the subject. Let's take a look:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Living as I do as a non-involved fly on the wall in a
> > > > > > polyamorous household, I have a more realistic picture
> > > > > > of what is involved in nonmonogamous relationships than
> > > > > > most. If there is a single word that characterizes the 
> > > > > > successful ones I've seen, that word is *honesty*. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh, you are amazing. And what an original conclusion. "Honesty" 
> > > > > who would have thought? And all this time I thought it was about how 
> > > > > good looking the other partner was that kept a relationship intact.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not about the sex, or as the idiot above suggests,
> > > > > > about being bored with one's partner. It's about having
> > > > > > the freedom to have more than one partner if one is
> > > > > > "drawn that way." Claiming that "there can be only one"
> > > > > > is as stupid in romantic relationships as it is for the
> > > > > > people who claim that "seeing other teachers" is suffic-
> > > > > > ient grounds to excommunicate someone from a spiritual
> > > > > > organization. And even in that parallel, as we all know
> > > > > > from the history of the TMO, people are willing to
> > > > > > *overlook* "straying" to other teachers AS LONG AS
> > > > > > THOSE WHO DO IT *LIE* ABOUT IT. It's the *openness*
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

Oh, and my wife is seven years older than I am, and hot. You comparing me to a 
woman kinda creeps me out Barry - Not because I don't recognize my feminine 
side, but its like you want me to be your boyfriend or something - no thank 
you! Go pull on your dachshund, dude.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
> did I not?  :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> > to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> > happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> > 
> > Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> > be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> > all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> > never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> > have.
> > 
> > You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> > Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > > 
> > > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > > to become invisible. 
> > > 
> > > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > > 
> > > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > > appearance. 
> > > 
> > > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > > sex objects. 
> > > 
> > > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > > 
> > > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> > > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> > > 
> > > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> > > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> > > 
> > > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > > the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> > > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> > > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > > year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> > > leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> > > 
> > > Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> > > that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> > > years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> > > a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> > > temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> > > ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> > > to do so, and focus my at

[FairfieldLife] Re: Backpacking --- Emily

[Carol]

I got goose bumples when I read your response Emily 

Home for sure. I wonder sometimes if there isn't some ancestral cell memory 
that calls one to the trails. My son and I have often remarked, "Why do we like 
this? It's lonley. It's hard work. It's painful." But alas, I love it 
intensely. I think the simplicity and knowing I have what I need on my back are 
two factors...but even those reasons are 'surface' stuff.

Have you ever read about Grandam Gatewood? One of the many trail people from 
the past. Her story inspires me. But I wont' be wearing Keds sneakers when I 
thru-hike the AT.
http://www.trailtherapy.org/Grandma_Gatewood.html

Yes, it would be great to meet some day on a trail!  

Thanks for the kudos re my daughter. Yes, she is very present and a wonderful 
young lady. She is currently finishing up her studies in anthropology and 
history. Hope she gets to put to use those degrees. 
 
So cool about the cairns. <3 Talk about transcendence. :)

The AT in the Smokies is not well marked and it's easy to get off trail. 

It's also easy to get off trail when I'm so into hiking I don't look for 
markers and all of a sudden I find myself 'unmarked.' I little panic "oh shit" 
happens. But all turns out well. 

No, I don't have a trail name. My son's name is "grocery cart" because he eats 
a lot. His backpacking partner's name is "chef" because he does most of the 
cooking. :D



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Carol, thank you so much for sharing this.  I love the line "people pack 
> their fears."  I am afraid of being cold and not having enough socks!  I 
> always pack too many layer options and too many socks.  I'll think of that 
> next time.  
> 
> Beautiful website and beautiful daughter; makes me want to cry, she's so 
> present and connected.  
> 
> One thing I loved in Utah this summer were the cairns that other hikers and 
> rangers had put up marking the trail in places where it disappeared into the 
> canyons and landscape; my friend and I built some too.  
> 
> This is the opposite of a great escape; feels like home.  I will remember 
> this.  I would love to meet up with you on a trail someday.  I don't have a 
> trail name yet - yours?  
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > From: Carol 
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:09 PM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Backpacking --- Emily
> > 
> >
> >  
> >Wow EmilyI know you must have lots of trail tales. :)
> >
> >My first trip out I was way too heavy. Lightened up when I took a zero day 
> >in Danville, VA. By the time I do my thru hike, I want to get really light. 
> >
> >One thru-hiker I met on my 71-mile debut was trekking his 7th(I think it 
> >was) thru hike. I think it was his third thru hike on the AT. We talked for 
> >a good 45 minutes as my son and I and he took a break on the trail. He lit 
> >his pipe (tobacco) and stated, "People pack their fears." I thought it was a 
> >great line. When I reached Danville a day later, I lightened my 
> >load...mainly medical supplies; that was my fear. 
> >
> >On a section hike in NY with my daughter, we met a couple who are doing a 
> >project (or at least were doing it) entitled "Journey of Dreams." They were 
> >hikiing and biking 10,000 miles and in the process video taping dreams from 
> >10,000 hikers and bikers.
> >
> >I just now checked there website...
> >http://journeyofdreams.com/
> >
> >My daughter appears in their Webisode #6. You can see and hear my daugher at 
> >minute 5:26. 
> >http://journeyofdreams.com/appalachian-trail-video/webisode-6-njny/
> >
> >At some point I'll have to see if I can catch up with Ron & Diane and find 
> >out where they are. (My time is stretched pretty thin these days.)
> >
> >I wrote a poem about meeting Ron & Diane...and the day they videoed my 
> >daughter and I as we shared our dream for their camera...
> >Here's a link to the poem:
> >http://parchmentanthology.blogspot.com/2010/09/progeny.html
> >
> >Some of my most favorite folks are hikers and backpackers. Just in my few 
> >short trips I've gained rich memories of the good in people. Plus,  I've had 
> >some trail angels leave food and water here and there. ;)
> >
> >Maybe I'll see you on a trail one day Emily. Do you have a trail name? :)
> >
> >**
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Carol:  
> >> 
> >> I grew up in the Northwest and backpacked most of my childhood - 15 years 
> >> old.  These were family trips with cousins ranging from mostly "long 
> >> weekend" jaunts to a 2-week long trip in the high sierras at about 15.  
> >> Then I took a long hiatus and left home for college and a wild ride 
> >> through my 20's.  Picked it up again with my kids and friends and did 
> >> 3-5 day trips in the Cascade mountains.  Have been on many of the hikes 
> >> in the "100 hikes" book.  I upgraded finally and bought all n

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> 
> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> to become invisible.

Actually, that isn't the case. Generally speaking,
women's sexual attractiveness tends to decline as
they age faster than that of men. It has a lot to
do with changes in hormonal balance after menopause.

There are other reasons as well for why there are
far more couples in which the man is older than
the woman than the reverse, but sexual attractiveness
is one of the major factors.


> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)

If anyone has rejected the notion of my sexual
attractiveness or "viability" (what that might mean for a
woman isn't clear) recently, I must have missed it.

In any case, it wouldn't make any sense to take seriously
someone's judgment of one's sexual attractiveness when
the person doing the judging knows one only through one's
posts on an electronic forum.

One might take seriously the low-vibe nature of such
comments, though, and point out that when made by a man
about a woman, they demonstrate sexism if not misogyny
(especially if they're habitually directed toward strong,
assertive women in lieu of substantive criticism).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[turquoiseb]

I *did* tell you how some of the women of FFL would react,
did I not?  :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive 
> to women, because you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very 
> happily married, though still get checked out by women a lot. 
> 
> Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will 
> be 59 this year. I am in excellent shape from being active 
> all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. Fortunately, I have 
> never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
> have.
> 
> You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. 
> Well, you've always got "window shopping", huh?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> > have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> > that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> > to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> > attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> > go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> > 
> > That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> > tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> > sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> > youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> > to become invisible. 
> > 
> > Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> > 
> > Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> > all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> > subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> > beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> > sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> > for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> > stage and to one in which I knew without question
> > that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> > would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> > appearance. 
> > 
> > And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> > selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> > so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> > ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> > talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> > or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> > women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> > as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> > sex objects. 
> > 
> > But women. That seems to be another story. 
> > 
> > Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> > to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> > and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> > angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> > that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> > considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> > the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> > conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> > worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> > 
> > Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> > predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> > mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> > the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> > and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> > obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> > other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> > 
> > Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> > when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> > the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> > invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> > whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> > the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> > or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> > invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> > and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> > year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> > leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> > 
> > Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> > that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> > years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> > a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> > temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> > ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> > to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> > DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> > thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> > sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> > to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy." 
> > 
> > The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in 
> > the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> > esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> > hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[doctordumbass]

You wrote ALL THAT just to tell us you are now unattractive to women, because 
you are an old man?? Too bad. I am very happily married, though still get 
checked out by women a lot. 

Most people think I am in my late forties, although I will be 59 this year. I 
am in excellent shape from being active all my life, and doing TM for 37 years. 
Fortunately, I have never based my self image on my physical appearance, as you 
have.

You are so hung up, on so much, you wrinkled old duffer. Well, you've always 
got "window shopping", huh?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> 
> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> to become invisible. 
> 
> Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> 
> Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> stage and to one in which I knew without question
> that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> appearance. 
> 
> And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> sex objects. 
> 
> But women. That seems to be another story. 
> 
> Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> 
> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> 
> Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> 
> Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy." 
> 
> The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in 
> the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more 
> attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers 
> have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas 
> are the playground of those who have grown more wise."
> 
> I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
> days you've gotten to see examples of the op

[FairfieldLife] Answer to Ravi on Channeling Part 2 of 2

[Michael Jackson]

Now we come to conscious channeling, where one supposedly taps into some kind 
of Divine Energy in the form of what we like to call angels, Archangels, devas 
or Ascended Masters. Here again some believe that a conscious channel is 
tapping into Universal Energy and that anyone can do it, which is true in my 
opinion. 


But as is often the case, the channel wants to make a living doing what they 
do, so they have to hype up what they do, an continually offer something 
different, like continually changing or updated, if you will, information. 
After the trance channels got a leg up through exposure by Shirley Maclaine, 
the conscious channels were quick to distinguish themselves as being different 
and "better" than trance channels since with conscious channels, you are 
getting "enlightened" beings rather than unenlightened ones.

There are a ton of them out there now. At first there was a lot of focus on the 
past. Most conscious channels were telling people in the late 80's through the 
1990's all about Lemuria and Atlantis and what star system they (the people 
coming for the channeling) were from and what past lives they led and what 
their far in the future spiritual purpose was. Then as life went on, there was 
a focus on the turmoil people were going through and what they should do about 
it. As time went on, more and more Masters seemed to pop up. 


As I have said before all this stuff got started in the late 1800's with Alice 
Bailey and Annie Besant who themselves following the lead created by Helena 
Blavatsky. Then the hucksters Guy and Edna Ballard and their buddy Barid T. 
Spaulding took the ball and ran with it. Mark Prophet learned from them and his 
second wife Elizabeth Claire took up the torch and it fanned out from there.

So we come to the central question about conscious channeling. Is it real? Do 
humans have the ability to connect and communicate with Divine Beings? Meaning 
being who have no ego, who are part of the Infinite Variety and Flavor of God 
or Universal Energy if you prefer that generic term?

Well, I believe that anything is possible so it is possible that there are such 
manifestations of God and since we are all part of that Universal Energy we can 
make connection with them. Of course there are those who think we are the 
Energy of God and it is our own Energy we channel when channeling takes place.

Where I have the greatest skepticism, is the pervasive belief that there is a 
great crowd of angels, Archangels and Ascended Masters who are part of a grand 
Divine Plan to create healing, upliftment and enlightenment for planet earth or 
ascension if you will. 


I could design a better plan than what I see - I think that we are schlepping 
around on earth doing whatever the hell we please and that is not going to 
stop. I had already come to that conclusion before I read Anita Moorjani's book 
Dying to Be Me, but her NDE convinced me that since we are Universal Energy we 
can do as we please and its all ok after death.

As to my own channeling, I always did it cuz the energy felt great. And the 
people who enjoyed and praised me as a great channel are the ones who always 
felt tons of energy when I was channeling for them. 


So Ravi to finally answer your question, even tho I did provide lots of 
information for people, it was really the energy they felt that made them feel 
they had a valuable experience. It was like a ton of darshan all at once. 


Only a few people had some physical effect like a lady In Atlanta who's 
psoriasis disappeared after having a reading with me. But I believe that she 
just unconsciously used the energy of the channeling to create her own healing. 
And I believe that whatever people feel energy-wise during my or anyone else's 
channeling they are feeling their own energy.

So the real deal is the channeling if its worth anything just makes people feel 
good for a little while, like a good meditation or great sexual experience. It 
feels great, makes you feel like you went beyond your normal self for a while. 
But after you are still in your body, your bank account may still be overdrawn 
or your spouse might have spent more money than you would like that month on a 
new fishing rod and reel.

The point is that in its best form, channeling is a means of feeling good for a 
while but it isn't gonna change the world. Some channeling experience may help 
an individual change some aspect of their heart or mind about something, but 
that is about it. It isn't any worse than spending the afternoon drinking 
liquor and playing poker, or drinking liquor and watching whatever game is on 
tv. They both make people feel good temporarily. And that is my take on 
channeling.

As to the people who do it, some of them really believe they are serving the 
earth by functioning conduits of Divine Energy, and others are just milking it 
for the amount of money and adulation they can get. I know one gal out in 
California who now charges something like 30

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[doctordumbass]

Will you be my relationship coach, pretty please?? LOL

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > in their heads. 
> > 
> > Great post Barry. 
> 
> Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
> tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
> colored glasses. :-)
> 
> > As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> > desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> > ask yourself, if you really want all of that.
> 
> Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
> for a while described interpersonal interactions as
> "touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
> yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
> Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
> aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
> intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
> involved with them. 
> 
> Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
> about the nature of relationships, I still like the
> "merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
> blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.
> 
> A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
> individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
> ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
> "color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
> put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
> your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
> concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
> in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
> their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
> and you suddenly have a third color, green. 
> 
> That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
> and why one should never blame the other party if a 
> relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
> merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
> isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
> having relationships is just in recognizing when the
> aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
> ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.
> 
> Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
> think he might have been onto something with this
> metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
> Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
> Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
> CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
> sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
> way. 
> 
> But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
> and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
> Learning to recognize such things before they even
> start, that can be even more valuable. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > 
> > > Regarding meditation, my late tantra guru always said "if you
> > > don't feel like meditating then don't because nothing will be 
> > > gained from the meditation."  In TM it was treated more
> > > devotional and skipping frowned on.
> > 
> > FWIW, I never heard there was anything "devotional" about
> > doing TM regularly. 
> 
> Doing TM regularly - quite obviously with zeal - means to
> devote ones time to it:

Right. But that isn't what the adjective "devotional"
means. In English, you can't always assume one form
of a term has exactly the same meanings as another
form.

(In any case, Bhairitu should have used the adverb
"devotionally" rather than the adjective "devotional.")

And "zeal" is not necessarily applicable either.

> de·vote  (d-vt)
> tr.v. de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing, de·votes
> 
> 1. To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular 
> activity, pursuit, cause, or person.
> 2. To set apart for a specific purpose or use: land devoted to mining.
> ...
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devote
> 
> In the above definitely #1 is applicable

Right. But it isn't clear that's what Bhairitu meant by
it (and of course "entirely" wouldn't apply to something
one does twice a day for 20 minutes).

> devotion [dɪˈvəʊʃən]
> n
> 1. (often foll by to) strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, 
> person, etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty
> 2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) religious zeal; piety
> 3. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (often plural) religious observance 
> or prayers
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devotion
> 
> #1 is applicable here, as in TM there is an attachment to the
> practice . In part also #3.

Bhairitu may have meant #1, in the sense of being dedicated
to regular practice, just as one might be said to be
dedicated to brushing one's teeth twice a day whether one
feels like it or not. If he meant #3--this was my point--
that's not what I was taught.
 
> > It was supposedly a matter of the
> > effect on the physiology, like the standard (not just in
> > TM) recommendation to eat and go to bed at regular times.
> 
> Non sequitur.

Not at all. You've completely missed my point, which had
to do with what I was taught was the reason it was
important not to miss meditations.

> > TM was also compared to brushing your teeth. It wouldn't
> > make any sense to say, "If you don't feel like brushing
> > your teeth then don't because nothing will be gained
> > from brushing them."
> 
> Well, there is a difference of opinion here. It's obvious,
> that while some people get out a lot of their meditations,
> there are others that don't - for example Ann, and yet
> others who are mostly daydreaming or dozing.

In the TM context, I was taught that it didn't matter
whether one felt one was getting a lot out of one's
meditation--it was doing one good regardless, as long
as one was practicing according to the instructions
(including being regular).

You see, the point has to do with Bhairitu's phrase
"treated as," meaning what TMers are taught--at least
in my experience--which is a matter of fact, not
opinion.

Navashok, your English skills simply aren't good enough
to play semantic games with the dictionary.

[FairfieldLife] Re: education for girls in Pakistan

[John]

Share,

That's a powerful presentation.  Education should be able to everyone to free 
the people from the oppression of ignorance.

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Please pass this along to your contacts. Slide Rocket created this short 24 
> slide presentation about a foundation that provides education to girls 
> in Pakistan and has offered to make a donation each time it is viewed.  Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> http://portal.sliderocket.com/BBVXH/Hoshyar-Foundation
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> 
> > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > in their heads. 
> 
> Great post Barry. 

Thanks for noticing, as opposed to some who have a 
tendency to read anything I write through aversion-
colored glasses. :-)

> As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, 
> desires, ideations, well Karma, and at some point, you 
> ask yourself, if you really want all of that.

Exactly. The odd Rama - Fred Lenz guy I studied with
for a while described interpersonal interactions as
"touching and merging auras." Imagine a field around
yourself as a luminous sphere, 2-5 meters in diameter. 
Now  imagine inviting someone else -- who has an equal
aura -- *into* yours. That's what you do when you focus 
intently on someone else, and even more so when you get 
involved with them. 

Although I certainly don't buy all that this guy said
about the nature of relationships, I still like the
"merging auras" metaphor because it allows a completely
blameless view of why some relationships don't work out.

A guy and a gal (or some other permutation best left to
individual imagination) hook up, romantically and sex-
ually. On their own, their auras are one predominant 
"color" (really combination of colors and energies), but 
put two of them together, and it's like the "color wheels"
your kindergarten teacher used to use to explain the
concept of color. Take a yellow circle of celophane
in one hand and a blue one in the other, and they have
their own distinct colors. But cross the two circles
and you suddenly have a third color, green. 

That was Rama's view of what happens in relationships,
and why one should never blame the other party if a 
relationship doesn't work out. Sometimes when auras
merge, the resulting color is pleasing. Sometimes it
isn't. No harm, no foul, either way. The secret to 
having relationships is just in recognizing when the
aura you've chosen to merge with yours is not produc-
ing a "color" that is equally pleasing to both parties.

Color me a cultist (and some possibly will), but I
think he might have been onto something with this
metaphor. I like it because of its "no fault cause."
Deciding to share another person's "whole set of 
Samskaras, desires, ideations, and well, Karma" 
CHANGES your own. Sometimes the result works, 
sometimes it doesn't. No harm, no foul, either
way. 

But *recognizing* the "inharmonious color mergings,"
and choosing not to pursue them, that can be of value. 
Learning to recognize such things before they even
start, that can be even more valuable. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Answer ro Ravi on Channeling Part 1 of 2 Parts

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Channeling: Like so much of life, one's point of view depends on one's 
> experience and on what one WANTS to believe. 

Mostly you remind me of this fellow:
http://cheezburger.com/7017001472

Re: [FairfieldLife] Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.... the sultry subject of sex

[Share Long]

And in a wonderful example of making homage and or cinematic self reflexivity, 
the Anita Ekberg character and fountain scene are both recreated in the 
delightful memoir Under the Tuscan Sun.  Sorry couldn't find the scene on 
youtube.  

Thanks to both bhairitu and merudanda for writing about movies in such an 
erudite way.  Helps me appreciate the medium even more.




 From: merudanda 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:59 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce the 
sultry subject of sex
 

  
Since it seems some at FFL likes it hot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3bBNUgENg 
Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077470/Penniless-screen-legend-Anita-Ekberg-80-appeals-financial-help-hitting-hard-times.html
 
and she makes a living now in giving interviews and taking part in workshop 
like the one at the Berlinale Talent Campus  during the 63rd Berlin 
International Film Festival which gather the most promising emerging filmmakers 
and bring them together with seasoned filmmakers and industry experts .Peter 
Cowie talked with the legendary Swedish film icon Anita Ekberg  about the start 
of her film career (La Dolce Vita, Boccaccio '70, 4 for Texas etc)and her 
notable work with renowned directors Federico Fellini, Robert Aldrich, and Gerd 
Oswald.
Dutch-American filmmaker Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Black Book)for example 
 kicked off the Campus program by sharing his film-making experiences, 
elaborating on how one should follow one's instincts during the process of 
film-making. 
Could be that turquoisb  et al  took part in the session "Some Like It Hot—The 
Power of Sex", where writer-director-actors Hagar Ben Asher (The Slut) and John 
Cameron Mitchell (Shortbus)  discussed how they use the sultry subject of sex 
to not only steam up the screen but make incisive critiques about society?

One of the most influential and popular works by Federico Fellini, LA DOLCE 
VITA follows the "sweet life" of a tabloid journalist (Marcello Mastroianni) 
who covers the glitzy show business life in Rome but OTOH want  to become a 
"serious writer". In constant search for the next big scandal, he is 
continually seduced by the decadent life led by Rome's pampered rich."It was a 
moment that marked a turning point in postwar Europe: Anita Ekberg wading 
through the Fontana di Trevi in Federico Fellini's film La Dolce Vita, as 
improbably voluptuous as the fountain itself. La Dolce Vita was shot in 1960, 
and while Ekberg's low-cut, dark evening dress may look back to the formal 50s, 
her insouciant transgression points unmistakably ahead, into the subversive 60s.

What few cinema-goers realized was that the scene in the film was a 
reconstruction of a real event. Two years earlier, Ekberg had spent the evening 
with a set photographer, Pierluigi Praturlon, at the Rancho Grande nightclub in 
Rome. To ease her aching feet on the way home, she climbed into the fountain. 
Praturlon, who never went anywhere without his Leica, lit up the scene with the 
headlights of his car and caught the moment in a photograph that Fellini later 
saw in a magazine, Tempo Illustrato."

"When the film was presented in New York, the distributor reproduced the 
fountain scene on a billboard as high as a skyscraper. My name was in the 
middle in huge letters, Fellini's was at the bottom, very tiny. Now the name of 
Fellini has become very great, mine very little." (Anita Ekberg)

"It was I who made Fellini famous, not the other way around". (Anita Ekberg)
On 12 December 1994, Dutch TROS television broadcasted this interview with 
Anita Ekberg, who became world famous when she baded in the Trevi foundation in 
Federico Fellini's "La Dolce Vita"actually filmed in March, when nights were 
still cold(According to Federico Fellini (in an interview with Costanzo 
Costantini), Anita Ekberg stood in the cold water in her dress for hours ). The 
interview is made by Ivo Niehe for his television show De TV-show (Dutch or 
English spoken, Dutch subtitles).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEvUdUqB6U 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4A89BYhjA0 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles in India: The Retreat That Reverberates Across the Universe

[obbajeeba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyTsi3By5w  and.. John Lennon wrote this and 
sang it too!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Philip Goldberg 
> Interfaith Minister, author of 'American Veda: How Indian Spirituality
> Changed the West'
> GET UPDATES FROM Philip Goldberg 
>  Goldberg> 
>  
>   Like  119   
> Beatles in India: The Retreat That Reverberates Across the Universe
>   19 222
>  etreat%20That%20Reverberates%20Across%20the%20Universe%20http%3A%2F%2Fhu\
> ff.to%2F12UWvtm%20via%20%40HuffPostRelig&lang=en>  3
> Forty five years ago, the Beatles were settling into the ashram of their
> new guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
>  , in
> Rishikesh  , India. The news
> coverage was nonstop and global, as it had been six months earlier when
> the lads first met Maharishi and became public advocates for his
> Transcendental Meditation   technique.
> 
> It would have been easy at the time to dismiss the media frenzy as just
> another pop culture craze. But reporters knew this was different. Why
> would four young, bright, fun-loving youngsters, wealthy beyond
> imagining, able to go anywhere and do anything, choose to hunker down in
> an austere, vegetarian, non-air-conditioned compound in the Himalayan
> foothills and spend large chunks of time each day with their eyes
> closed? What is this meditation thing? What could a backward,
> impoverished country, only two decades removed from imperial rule, have
> to offer people who seemed to have everything a human being could want?
> 
> Questions like those turned what might have been a brief media burst
> into a watershed moment in cultural history. I opened American Veda
>  , my book about the impact of Indian
> spirituality on the U.S., by calling the Beatles' expedition "the most
> momentous spiritual retreat since Jesus spent those forty days in the
> wilderness." Since publication, not one person has argued with that
> assertion. It was as though the earth tilted on its axis in February,
> 1968, making ancient Eastern teachings flow more easily and quickly to
> the West. The result would impact healthcare, psychology, neuroscience,
> and especially the way we understand and engage our spirituality.
> 
> In retrospect, the meeting of the Fab Four and the teacher who will
> probably always be known as "The Beatles' Guru" seems as karmically
> destined as that of Bill and Hillary or Lewis and Clark. ike many in the
> counterculture of which they had become de facto leaders, the band
> members had come to see that psychedelic drugs like LSD could open the
> door to higher consciousness but they did not let you stay there, and,
> in the bargain, came with serious risks. The search was on for safe,
> natural ways to expand the mind and attain inner peace and unified
> awareness. The East seemed to have answers, and all signs pointed to
> something called meditation. George Harrison, having spent time in India
> studying sitar with Ravi Shankar   and
> reading spiritual literature, was among the ripest candidates.
> 
> For his part, Maharishi had been circling the globe for nearly a decade,
> slowly attracting students, mostly among respectable middle-aged people
> with a metaphysical bent. His laser-like focus on meditation, and his
> skill in presenting a systematic, universal practice that was suitable
> for both secular self-improvement and spiritual enlightenment, were
> ideally suited for the rational, pragmatic West. When, in 1965, college
> students began to take up TM, word spread quickly and meditation clubs
> popped up on campuses. By August of 1967, when Maharishi lectured at the
> London Hilton, it was only natural that Pattie Boyd Harrison
>   would hear about it and lead
> her husband and his mates to the jam-packed hotel ballroom.
> 
> The Beatles took to meditation like they had taken to Chuck Berry and
> Little Richard. John and George were especially enthusiastic (hear David
> Frost's interview with them 
> ). Young people everywhere, always eager to emulate their musical
> heroes, flooded TM centers. The press coverage was remarkable for its
> shortage of cynicism. It featured parents and respected cultural leaders
> who were impressed by the life changes they observed in the meditating
> youth. As a result, scientists, prodded by Maharishi, who had majored in
> physics, started doing rigorous research on the effects of the practice.
> 
> Before lon

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> The skinboy I spoke with recently said point blank that TM
> is a Hindu devotional practice of repeating or "chanting"
> the names of Hindu goddesses whether one knows that is what
> one is doing or not.

Yes, you told us what he said already. (I asked you
whether when one eats bread and drinks wine, one is
engaging in a Christian devotional practice whether
one knows it or not. I don't believe you responded.)

But this has nothing to do with the point I was making
to Bhairitu. The key words are "treated as."

Navashok's comments are a function of his lack of
command of English, so they're irrelevant as well.





> From: navashok 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:47 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > 
> > > Regarding meditation, my late tantra guru always said "if you
> > > don't feel like meditating then don't because nothing will be 
> > > gained from the meditation."  In TM it was treated more
> > > devotional and skipping frowned on.
> > 
> > FWIW, I never heard there was anything "devotional" about
> > doing TM regularly. 
> 
> Doing TM regularly - quite obviously with zeal - means to devote ones time to 
> it:
> 
> de·vote  (d-vt)
> tr.v. de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing, de·votes
> 
> 1. To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular 
> activity, pursuit, cause, or person.
> 2. To set apart for a specific purpose or use: land devoted to mining.
> ...
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devote
> 
> In the above definitely #1 is applicable 
> 
> devotion [dɪˈvəʊʃən]
> n
> 1. (often foll by to) strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, 
> person, etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty
> 2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) religious zeal; piety
> 3. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (often plural) religious observance 
> or prayers
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devotion
> 
> #1 is applicable here, as in TM there is an attachment to the practice . In 
> part also #3.
> 
> > It was supposedly a matter of the
> > effect on the physiology, like the standard (not just in
> > TM) recommendation to eat and go to bed at regular times.
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> > TM was also compared to brushing your teeth. It wouldn't
> > make any sense to say, "If you don't feel like brushing
> > your teeth then don't because nothing will be gained
> > from brushing them."
> 
> Well, there is a difference of opinion here. It's obvious, that while some 
> people get out a lot of their meditations, there are others that don't - for 
> example Ann, and yet others who are mostly daydreaming or dozing.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Repost: are those real??

[obbajeeba]

Odin, has offspring that stretch over to the states. :)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> Whoa! Here in Scandinavia, I think it's only in Sweden one can
> encounter things like that, I mean given by Elohim, not by a
> plastic surgeon!
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Yes.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Share Long]

Well actually it's TWO sets of all that!  Ours and theirs.  Jyotish 
compatability can indicate what's dominant in a relationship and that can be 
helpful when the hormones and neurotransmitters are in 
tsunami mode.  In my experience (-:

Most relationships romantic and otherwise are a mix of dharma and karma which 
itself is a mix of positive and negative.   



 From: navashok 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:54 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for 
You
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:


> I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> in their heads. 

Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's not 
just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, well 
Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of that.


 

[FairfieldLife] Beatles in India: The Retreat That Reverberates Across the Universe

[nablusoss1008]

Philip Goldberg 
Interfaith Minister, author of 'American Veda: How Indian Spirituality
Changed the West'
GET UPDATES FROM Philip Goldberg 
 
 
  Like  119   
Beatles in India: The Retreat That Reverberates Across the Universe
  19 222
  3
Forty five years ago, the Beatles were settling into the ashram of their
new guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
 , in
Rishikesh  , India. The news
coverage was nonstop and global, as it had been six months earlier when
the lads first met Maharishi and became public advocates for his
Transcendental Meditation   technique.

It would have been easy at the time to dismiss the media frenzy as just
another pop culture craze. But reporters knew this was different. Why
would four young, bright, fun-loving youngsters, wealthy beyond
imagining, able to go anywhere and do anything, choose to hunker down in
an austere, vegetarian, non-air-conditioned compound in the Himalayan
foothills and spend large chunks of time each day with their eyes
closed? What is this meditation thing? What could a backward,
impoverished country, only two decades removed from imperial rule, have
to offer people who seemed to have everything a human being could want?

Questions like those turned what might have been a brief media burst
into a watershed moment in cultural history. I opened American Veda
 , my book about the impact of Indian
spirituality on the U.S., by calling the Beatles' expedition "the most
momentous spiritual retreat since Jesus spent those forty days in the
wilderness." Since publication, not one person has argued with that
assertion. It was as though the earth tilted on its axis in February,
1968, making ancient Eastern teachings flow more easily and quickly to
the West. The result would impact healthcare, psychology, neuroscience,
and especially the way we understand and engage our spirituality.

In retrospect, the meeting of the Fab Four and the teacher who will
probably always be known as "The Beatles' Guru" seems as karmically
destined as that of Bill and Hillary or Lewis and Clark. ike many in the
counterculture of which they had become de facto leaders, the band
members had come to see that psychedelic drugs like LSD could open the
door to higher consciousness but they did not let you stay there, and,
in the bargain, came with serious risks. The search was on for safe,
natural ways to expand the mind and attain inner peace and unified
awareness. The East seemed to have answers, and all signs pointed to
something called meditation. George Harrison, having spent time in India
studying sitar with Ravi Shankar   and
reading spiritual literature, was among the ripest candidates.

For his part, Maharishi had been circling the globe for nearly a decade,
slowly attracting students, mostly among respectable middle-aged people
with a metaphysical bent. His laser-like focus on meditation, and his
skill in presenting a systematic, universal practice that was suitable
for both secular self-improvement and spiritual enlightenment, were
ideally suited for the rational, pragmatic West. When, in 1965, college
students began to take up TM, word spread quickly and meditation clubs
popped up on campuses. By August of 1967, when Maharishi lectured at the
London Hilton, it was only natural that Pattie Boyd Harrison
  would hear about it and lead
her husband and his mates to the jam-packed hotel ballroom.

The Beatles took to meditation like they had taken to Chuck Berry and
Little Richard. John and George were especially enthusiastic (hear David
Frost's interview with them 
). Young people everywhere, always eager to emulate their musical
heroes, flooded TM centers. The press coverage was remarkable for its
shortage of cynicism. It featured parents and respected cultural leaders
who were impressed by the life changes they observed in the meditating
youth. As a result, scientists, prodded by Maharishi, who had majored in
physics, started doing rigorous research on the effects of the practice.

Before long, physicians and therapists were recommending meditation to
stressed-out grownups. To meet the burgeoning demand, Maharishi trained
a cadre of teachers, essentially democratizing what had long been an
esoteric practice available only to an elite few, much as Henry Ford had
democratized automobiles. Now, hund

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > > in their heads. 
> > 
> > Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's 
> > not just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, 
> > well Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of 
> > that.
> 
> That's about as relevant as Larry Domash stating back in about 1977 with 
> regard to the art department at MIU, "Who wants to see a bunch of unstressing 
> put up on the walls?" (Speaking about displaying/hanging students' and 
> professors' art work.)

There is a difference though, Ann, a picture you can hang on the wall, and it 
doesn't talk back to you.
>

[FairfieldLife] Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.... the sultry subject of sex

[merudanda]

Since it seems some at FFL likes it hot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3bBNUgENg

Poor Anita Ekberg! Her Vida is not Dolce.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077470/Penniless-screen-legend-\
Anita-Ekberg-80-appeals-financial-help-hitting-hard-times.html

and she makes a living now in giving interviews and taking part in
workshop like the one at the Berlinale Talent Campus  during the 63rd
Berlin International Film Festival which gather the most promising
emerging filmmakers and bring them together with seasoned filmmakers and
industry experts .Peter Cowie talked with the legendary Swedish film
icon Anita Ekberg  about the start of her film career (La Dolce Vita,
Boccaccio '70, 4 for Texas etc)and her notable work with renowned
directors Federico Fellini, Robert Aldrich, and Gerd Oswald.
Dutch-American filmmaker Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Black Book)for
example  kicked off the Campus program by sharing his film-making
experiences, elaborating on how one should follow one's instincts
during the process of film-making.
Could be that turquoisb  et al  took part in the session "Some Like
It Hot—The Power of Sex", where writer-director-actors Hagar Ben
Asher (The Slut) and John Cameron Mitchell (Shortbus)  discussed how
they use the sultry subject of sex to not only steam up the screen but
make incisive critiques about society?
  [http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/file/2901073.jpg]
One of the most influential and popular works by Federico Fellini, LA
DOLCE VITA follows the "sweet life" of a tabloid journalist (Marcello
Mastroianni) who covers the glitzy show business life in Rome but OTOH
want  to become a "serious writer". In constant search for the next big
scandal, he is continually seduced by the decadent life led by Rome's
pampered rich."It was a moment that marked a turning point in postwar
Europe: Anita Ekberg wading through the Fontana di Trevi in Federico
Fellini's film La Dolce Vita, as improbably voluptuous as the fountain
itself. La Dolce Vita was shot in 1960, and while Ekberg's low-cut, dark
evening dress may look back to the formal 50s, her insouciant
transgression points unmistakably ahead, into the subversive 60s.

What few cinema-goers realized was that the scene in the film was a
reconstruction of a real event. Two years earlier, Ekberg had spent the
evening with a set photographer, Pierluigi Praturlon, at the Rancho
Grande nightclub in Rome. To ease her aching feet on the way home, she
climbed into the fountain. Praturlon, who never went anywhere without
his Leica, lit up the scene with the headlights of his car and caught
the moment in a photograph that Fellini later saw in a magazine, Tempo
Illustrato."

"When the film was presented in New York, the distributor reproduced the
fountain scene on a billboard as high as a skyscraper. My name was in
the middle in huge letters, Fellini's was at the bottom, very tiny. Now
the name of Fellini has become very great, mine very little." (Anita
Ekberg)
"It was I who made Fellini famous, not the other way around". (Anita
Ekberg)
On 12 December 1994, Dutch TROS television broadcasted this interview
with Anita Ekberg, who became world famous when she baded in the Trevi
foundation in Federico Fellini's "La Dolce Vita"actually filmed in
March, when nights were still cold(According to Federico Fellini (in an
interview with Costanzo Costantini), Anita Ekberg stood in the cold
water in her dress for hours ). The interview is made by Ivo Niehe for
his television show De TV-show (Dutch or English spoken, Dutch
subtitles).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEvUdUqB6U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4A89BYhjA0

[FairfieldLife] Re: Repost: are those real??

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> Whoa! Here in Scandinavia, I think it's only in Sweden one can
> encounter things like that, I mean given by Elohim, not by a
> plastic surgeon!

Oh I thought he was asking if SHE was for real which of course is a resounding 
"no". No one could possibly be that vacuous and silly, could they? 

The breasts, however, were jiggling around in a rather realistic manner, 
especially as they were upheld nicely with an underwire push-me-up-throw-me-out 
bra which would have increased the pressure on them if they were fake and the 
jelly-like motion would not have been so apparent. Therefore, I would have to 
conclude that they were either saline implants or real girl in there.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Yes.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> 
> 
> > I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> > what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> > Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> > who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> > running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> > for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> > know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> > like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> > them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> > never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> > in their heads. 
> 
> Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's not 
> just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, well 
> Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of that.

That's about as relevant as Larry Domash stating back in about 1977 with regard 
to the art department at MIU, "Who wants to see a bunch of unstressing put up 
on the walls?" (Speaking about displaying/hanging students' and professors' art 
work.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Repost: are those real??

[card]

Whoa! Here in Scandinavia, I think it's only in Sweden one can
encounter things like that, I mean given by Elohim, not by a
plastic surgeon!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Yes.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is it okay..

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> to laugh at someone elses mishaps?

You bet, especially when it is as innocuous as this. I mean, nothing gets me 
howling more than the slipping/tripping and falling down 'mishap'. I remember 
standing outside of the student union at MIU for twenty minutes knowing there 
was this invisible icy spot and watching every unsuspecting person who stepped 
on it do the boogie woogie and either just barely manage to stay on their feet 
or actually fall down. Me and my friends were splitting our sides. No one got 
hurt so I guess I could justify my evil mirth in the end.

When I first started teaching riding as a much younger person I had a real 
problem not bursting out laughing when a student fell off. Luckily, that 
impulse has been mastered in later life although I do remember my own coach 
just about splitting a gut when my horse landed after a double combination 
(jump) and he took one stride and whirled 180 degrees on the spot sending me, 
like a lawn dart, straight into the dirt. Surprised us both because it was so 
unexpected. She only let herself start laughing once she heard me guffawing on 
the ground as she ran up to me. So luckily I am just as likely to laugh at 
myself as the next guy.
> 
> http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/college-umpire-takes-embarrassing-tumble-hit-batsman-ruling-080208202--mlb.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Answer ro Ravi on Channeling Part 1 of 2 Parts

[Michael Jackson]

Channeling: Like so much of life, one's point of view depends on one's 
experience and on what one WANTS to believe. 

Some would say that any experience of gaining knowledge and insight that others 
are not easily or naturally able to access is channeling. By that definition 
Mozart was a great channel, Einstein, Tesla and so on. I disagree with this 
definition of channeling since I think all great thinkers, inventors, 
philosophers and so on are discerning energy configurations that exist in the 
infinite Awareness that is the basis of everything, and in theory at least 
these specific configurations are available to all of us.

There is the specific form of channeling where the channel supposedly steps out 
of their own body or goes to sleep inside and allows an "unenlightened" soul to 
temporarily inhabit their body to give information. Most of the most popular 
channels in the 1980's and 1990's fell into this category thanks to Shirley 
MacLaine having Kevin Ryerson in her tv movie. Edgar Cayce would technically 
have fallen into this category, tho personally I think he may have been 
expressing part of his own superconscious self, but for whatever reason he was 
too reluctant to acknowledge it was himself he was expressing, so he had to go 
to sleep during the readings. In Cayce's case, his information was extremely 
specific and thousands of people said he helped them, mainly with health 
issues. It was only in the later part of his life that he started channeling 
the esoteric stuff about Atlantis and so forth. 

So in his case a great many people got specific assistance. For most of the 
rest of the trance channels, they were mostly parroting spiritual stuff you 
could get from any book, but where the masses are concerned, where some are 
willing to lead, there are tons willing to follow, which is why Marshy, 
Huckster of the Age of Ignorance and Vedic Liar of the Age of Enlightenment was 
so financially successful. 

Part 2 coming in a few minutes.





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
 

  
Dear MJ - I'm totally with you on Maharishi being a charlatan - but please 
explain this to me if you can. I personally think the healers, the channelers 
are useless, in a fantasy world, no better than say alcoholics - though some of 
the nicest, gentlest, harmless people mind you - they are better off being 
artists, engineers, businessmen/women and myriad other life-affirming, 
meaningful, authentic professions.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Michael Jackson  wrote:

 
>  
>Facetious and also proves you don't know crap about it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: seventhray27 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:49 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
> 
>
>  
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  
>wrote:
> actually directed at all who have reviled me after I mentioned I had done 
>such activity fora long time - at the time I left MIU there were a BUNCH of 
>people in Fairfield into channeling, most of them having taken Bob Fickes' 
>channeling class there in 1987
>That's great.  I can just see it now.
>Teacher: Okay class, today we are going to work on our channelling voice, or 
>channelling demeanor.  It is important for each of you come up with your own 
>unique style.  You may want to take on an Asian accent, or perhaps even a high 
>pitched voice.
>Student: Question teacher.  Do we need to have a different voice for the 
>various entities we are channelling?
>Teacher:  Yes, that would be desireable, but not absoutely necessary.
>Student: Teacher, what about shaking or other body movements?
>Teacher: We will cover that tomorrow.  Now I want to break into small groups 
>and practice, what will become your unique style of speaking.
>
>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[Michael Jackson]

The skinboy I spoke with recently said point blank that TM is a Hindu 
devotional practice of repeating or "chanting" the names of Hindu goddesses 
whether one knows that is what one is doing or not. 





 From: navashok 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> 
> > Regarding meditation, my late tantra guru always said "if you
> > don't feel like meditating then don't because nothing will be 
> > gained from the meditation."  In TM it was treated more
> > devotional and skipping frowned on.
> 
> FWIW, I never heard there was anything "devotional" about
> doing TM regularly. 

Doing TM regularly - quite obviously with zeal - means to devote ones time to 
it:

de·vote  (d-vt)
tr.v. de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing, de·votes

1. To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular 
activity, pursuit, cause, or person.
2. To set apart for a specific purpose or use: land devoted to mining.
...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devote

In the above definitely #1 is applicable 

devotion [dɪˈvəʊʃən]
n
1. (often foll by to) strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, person, 
etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty
2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) religious zeal; piety
3. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (often plural) religious observance or 
prayers

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devotion

#1 is applicable here, as in TM there is an attachment to the practice . In 
part also #3.

> It was supposedly a matter of the
> effect on the physiology, like the standard (not just in
> TM) recommendation to eat and go to bed at regular times.

Non sequitur.

> TM was also compared to brushing your teeth. It wouldn't
> make any sense to say, "If you don't feel like brushing
> your teeth then don't because nothing will be gained
> from brushing them."

Well, there is a difference of opinion here. It's obvious, that while some 
people get out a lot of their meditations, there are others that don't - for 
example Ann, and yet others who are mostly daydreaming or dozing.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> 
> > Regarding meditation, my late tantra guru always said "if you
> > don't feel like meditating then don't because nothing will be 
> > gained from the meditation."  In TM it was treated more
> > devotional and skipping frowned on.
> 
> FWIW, I never heard there was anything "devotional" about
> doing TM regularly. 

Doing TM regularly - quite obviously with zeal - means to devote ones time to 
it:

de·vote  (d-vt)
tr.v. de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing, de·votes

1. To give or apply (one's time, attention, or self) entirely to a particular 
activity, pursuit, cause, or person.
2. To set apart for a specific purpose or use: land devoted to mining.
...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devote

In the above definitely #1 is applicable  

devotion [dɪˈvəʊʃən]
n
1. (often foll by to) strong attachment (to) or affection (for a cause, person, 
etc.) marked by dedicated loyalty
2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) religious zeal; piety
3. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (often plural) religious observance or 
prayers

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devotion

#1 is applicable here, as in TM there is an attachment to the practice . In 
part also #3.

> It was supposedly a matter of the
> effect on the physiology, like the standard (not just in
> TM) recommendation to eat and go to bed at regular times.

Non sequitur.

> TM was also compared to brushing your teeth. It wouldn't
> make any sense to say, "If you don't feel like brushing
> your teeth then don't because nothing will be gained
> from brushing them."

Well, there is a difference of opinion here. It's obvious, that while some 
people get out a lot of their meditations, there are others that don't - for 
example Ann, and yet others who are mostly daydreaming or dozing.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[doctordumbass]

Yeah, the only time I got into channeling was when I cancelled my cable service 
and went to broadcast TV. The TV had to search again for all its channels. 

Alternatively, making my body into a sock puppet for some spirit out there, has 
never appealed to me. Here is a brief clip from the movie, The Other Guys, 
where Will Ferrell almost channels Samuel Jackson...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uETsBvisKAA


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson
>  wrote:
> 
>   actually directed at all who have reviled me after I mentioned I had
> done such activity fora long time - at the time I left MIU there were a
> BUNCH of people in Fairfield into channeling, most of them having taken
> Bob Fickes' channeling class there in 1987
> 
> That's great.  I can just see it now.
> 
> Teacher: Okay class, today we are going to work on our channelling
> voice, or channelling demeanor.  It is important for each of you come up
> with your own unique style.  You may want to take on an Asian accent, or
> perhaps even a high pitched voice.
> 
> Student: Question teacher.  Do we need to have a different voice for the
> various entities we are channelling?
> 
> Teacher:  Yes, that would be desireable, but not absoutely necessary.
> 
> Student: Teacher, what about shaking or other body movements?
> 
> Teacher: We will cover that tomorrow.  Now I want to break into small
> groups and practice, what will become your unique style of speaking.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> How would you know? Since you think I am you obviously don't know what one is.


Because you don't know the difference between spiritism, channeling and 
overshadowing. 
Like the americans say: "Big hat, no cattle"

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[Michael Jackson]

How would you know? Since you think I am you obviously don't know what one is.





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > Being a failed spiritist seems to be a troublesome destiny.
> 
> You'd have to ask Benjamin Creme about that. :-)

Creme wouldn't know since he is not a spiritist :-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[Michael Jackson]

Hmmm, shall I give a facetious answer or answer seriously? 

Healers - my personal belief is that everyone is the Divine Light, or Pure 
Awareness or whatever you want to call it. Everything in manifest creation is 
composed of the Essence that we are, so when we create joy and bliss or terror 
and horror, we are using the same Divine Essence to create.

Thus if we know what we are doing, we can use that ability to create what we 
need to or alter our existing creation. In the final event, supposedly each 
person is actually creating their own healing, using that ability of Being to 
shift our current physical, mental, emotional or financial circumstance. Some 
"healers" seem to have an ability to help people shift more than others, or 
perhaps its better to say more people seem to be able to shift in the presence 
of certain healers. I think Richard Bartlett is one of those tho he does not 
call himself a healer or call what he teaches anything but a means of helping 
people to shift their own awareness.

I think this hold true whether the person is a real froo froo faith healer 
someone like John of God or a more pedestrian practitioner like maybe someone 
who does medical chi gung. So I think it is useful to be around some of the 
so-called healers. But a lot of people think that about the hucksters too. 

Of course, there are some who seem to have some legit energy and they add a 
great deal of hype, like that Australian guy who was so popular in Fairfield a 
few years back, the one who said he brings in healing angels in his group 
meetings and spent hours talking about Japanese water filters and all the nasty 
germs and other stuff one needed to be afraid of.

Channeling is a slightly different deal, I will address that in the next post.





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
 

  
Dear MJ - I'm totally with you on Maharishi being a charlatan - but please 
explain this to me if you can. I personally think the healers, the channelers 
are useless, in a fantasy world, no better than say alcoholics - though some of 
the nicest, gentlest, harmless people mind you - they are better off being 
artists, engineers, businessmen/women and myriad other life-affirming, 
meaningful, authentic professions.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Michael Jackson  wrote:

 
>  
>Facetious and also proves you don't know crap about it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: seventhray27 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:49 PM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
> 
>
>  
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  
>wrote:
> actually directed at all who have reviled me after I mentioned I had done 
>such activity fora long time - at the time I left MIU there were a BUNCH of 
>people in Fairfield into channeling, most of them having taken Bob Fickes' 
>channeling class there in 1987
>That's great.  I can just see it now.
>Teacher: Okay class, today we are going to work on our channelling voice, or 
>channelling demeanor.  It is important for each of you come up with your own 
>unique style.  You may want to take on an Asian accent, or perhaps even a high 
>pitched voice.
>Student: Question teacher.  Do we need to have a different voice for the 
>various entities we are channelling?
>Teacher:  Yes, that would be desireable, but not absoutely necessary.
>Student: Teacher, what about shaking or other body movements?
>Teacher: We will cover that tomorrow.  Now I want to break into small groups 
>and practice, what will become your unique style of speaking.
>
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > Being a failed spiritist seems to be a troublesome destiny.
> 
> You'd have to ask Benjamin Creme about that. :-)


Creme wouldn't know since he is not a spiritist :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[Michael Jackson]

Ha! That's a good one!





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:42 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Being a failed spiritist seems to be a troublesome destiny.

You'd have to ask Benjamin Creme about that. :-)


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Repost: are those real??

[obbajeeba]

Yes.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gems from the Tantras

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > This IS a gem, navashok, thanks for posting.  Also replying to a few of 
> > > your other recent posts:
> > 
> > Yep. I am not an expert on Tantras like Bhairithu or Uncle Tantra, I got 
> > these two books in my shelf 'Gems of Tantras' by M.P. Pundit. Once, one of 
> > his small booklets, Adoration of the Divine Mother, long out of print, had 
> > a trans-formative effect on my life.
> > 
> > > I'm glad all your sins have already been washed away by Ganga (-:
> > 
> > ;-) I was at three Kumbh Melas total, so I think that is overkill. That 
> > should really do it for the rest of this incarnation. 
> > 
> > > Monsoon Wedding is my closest encounter with Bollywood.  I enjoyed that 
> > > and also Bend It Like Beckham which had some Bollywood elements.
> > 
> > I have seen both. The later one is nice and funny, and the first one is 
> > really authentic, that's really how weddings are in India, I was told. 
> > Bollywood is a dream-factory, and most movies are junk. The ones I 
> > mentioned are among the good ones, there are others too, but the ones I saw 
> > were mostly romance. But then I like A.R. Rahman as composer.
> > 
> > > As for visiting saints, etc., it's my experience that life takes us where 
> > > we need to go.  For what?  Well, to have more of it!
> > 
> > You tell it, I know about it.
> >  
> > > PS  I also like what Uncle Tantra replied to this topic.  
> > 
> > True, at some point, life becomes meditation, the barriers between the 
> > inner and the outer are torn apart. I still feel the pull inward, quite 
> > spontaneously. I think that's really what it is all about: when the pull is 
> > so strong, that meditation is unavoidable, this also with regard to the guy 
> > who follows Shivabalayogi. At that point, there is not the question IF you 
> > should meditate, WHY and for WHAT. But if you try to force yourself to do 
> > meditation, for many hours, when you do it to achieve something, maybe to 
> > become somebody, have exaggerated expectations, then it's indeed unhealthy. 
> > But I don't understand people like Ann, who don't enjoy meditation. I think 
> > she really doesn't know what meditation is.
> 
> You could be right on that one. For me, activity is so charming, so 
> fulfilling, so FULL that nothing has yet superseded it for me. The variety, 
> the nuances, the diversity of what one can experience with the eyes open, the 
> ears listening, the skin feeling just offers so much more for me. 

Ann, I have no argument about this. It's more like an observation. I am with 
Bhairitu on this, meditation is not for everybody, I love it, but it doesn't 
have to be like this for you. There are different paths, approaches to God, if 
you find God in activity, if you just enjoy life, kudos to you.

> But of course, along with all the tactile sensations are the brain functions, 
> the emotions, the thoughts, the insights that go along with it. I mean, how 
> can you beat that? What a smorgasbord of delight, of thrill, of waiting for 
> the next unknown event in one's day to pop up? 

Having said the above, I don't think you have to beat that. Meditation isn't 
about getting excited, it's about loosing excitation, it's about getting 
detached (non-attached). Some people have a natural pull towards that, they are 
drawn inward. They question the excitements of life, they question there own 
attachment to thoughts. If you are just too much excited about life, you may 
miss it's evanescence,  it's the emptiness.

> It takes all ones skill just to engineer one's way through a single day. When 
> I sleep it is way more interesting than meditating. My nights during sleep 
> are like three-feature film nights; I get as much experience dreaming as I do 
> being awake only this time I get to live other realities, see new things, 
> things I don't observe during the day - fantastic things. 

Nice, sounds you are having a lot of lucid dreaming. Meditation though is quite 
different.

> I mean, I have 24 HOURS of non-stop input, I'm rolling in it and I still 
> can't get enough.
> 
> So yes, undoubtedly I am missing out on some bliss,  some quiet aspects of 
> non-doing but that's okay, I think I see lots of God everywhere I look, even 
> picking up the dog shit.

I too think it's okay.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[obbajeeba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI4xVeRjunk

Who are you referring to as a "Feminist?"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
> have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
> that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
> to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
> attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
> go more than a little batshit crazy. 
> 
> That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
> tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
> sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
> youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
> to become invisible. 
> 
> Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 
> 
> Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
> all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
> subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
> beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
> sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
> for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
> stage and to one in which I knew without question
> that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
> would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
> appearance. 
> 
> And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
> selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
> so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
> ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
> talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
> or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
> women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
> as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
> sex objects. 
> 
> But women. That seems to be another story. 
> 
> Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
> to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
> and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
> angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
> that they were no longer even in the running for being 
> considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
> the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
> conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
> worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 
> 
> Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
> predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
> mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
> the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
> and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
> obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
> other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)
> 
> Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
> when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
> the surprising percentage of women they have become 
> invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
> whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
> the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
> or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
> invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
> and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
> year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
> leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)
> 
> Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
> that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
> years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
> a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
> temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
> ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
> to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
> DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
> thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
> sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
> to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy." 
> 
> The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in 
> the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
> esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
> hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
> scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more 
> attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers 
> have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas 
> are the playground of those who have grown more wise."
> 
> I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
> days you've gotten to see examples of the opposite -- women
> who like to think of themselves as strong, independent 
> feminists but who go batshit crazy the moment someone 
> suggests that they are not fuckable. And who then channel
> that batshitcrazinessitude into trying to portray the person
> who suggested such a thing as somehow "sexually impaired"
> themselves. And, of course, there are the guys trying to
> be considered women who pile on and join them in this. :-)
> 
> I think it's 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is it okay..

[Share Long]

I liked that he had a good sense of humor about his stumble (-:





 From: seventhray27 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is it okay..
 

  
to laugh at someone elses mishaps?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/college-umpire-takes-embarrassing-tumble-hit-batsman-ruling-080208202--mlb.html


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[obbajeeba]

Of course! Uncle Tantra invented message board threads!
Turq is in control, and sits back because he does not wish to have to replace 
another keyboard. Pushing buttons and wanking gets messy sometimes! ;)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
>  wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Tantra will get back to you drama queens and your humiliating
> > pile-ons, these get-Barry fests and get-Barry orgies.
> 
> Why do you think I posted what I did at the end of last week and
> the beginning of this one? A few posts calculated to push buttons,
> and then I can just sit back and watch people demonstrate to the
> lurkers how attached and reactive they are.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You

[navashok]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:


> I actually look upon this as a fairly healthy and some-
> what more evolved way of dealing with sex and romance.
> Who, after all, would ever want to hook up with someone
> who has all these fantasies of the perfect lover or mate
> running around in their heads, so much so that they LONG
> for them or develop an abstract NEED for them? I don't
> know about you, but every time I've run into a woman 
> like that and been foolish enough to get involved with
> them anyway, I've learned very quickly that they were 
> never relating to me *at all*, just to the fantasies 
> in their heads. 

Great post Barry. As a friend of mine said it recently: if you date, it's not 
just a nice woman, but a whole set of Samskaras, desires, ideations, well 
Karma, and at some point, you ask yourself, if you really want all of that.

[FairfieldLife] education for girls in Pakistan

[Share Long]

Please pass this along to your contacts. Slide Rocket created this short 24 
slide presentation about a foundation that provides education to girls 
in Pakistan and has offered to make a donation each time it is viewed.  Thanks



http://portal.sliderocket.com/BBVXH/Hoshyar-Foundation

Re: [FairfieldLife] Some fun, eh kid?

[Share Long]

Thanks for posting, very sweet.  Also sent to a friend who's under the weather 
with infected teeth.  





 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Some fun, eh kid?
 

  

http://screen.yahoo.com/baby-elephant-plays-ocean-231138164.html


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Being a failed spiritist seems to be a troublesome destiny.

You'd have to ask Benjamin Creme about that. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Smarak

[nablusoss1008]

Maharishi SmarakPosted on February 17, 2013 by Andrew Lawson Kerr in
Knowledge & news <http://www.alkpurusha.net/category/knowledge-news/> ,
Kumbha Mela <http://www.alkpurusha.net/category/kumbha-mela/> .
  [20130217-162105.jpg] 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.alkpurusha.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/20130217\
-162105.jpg?w=590>

There's probably more I could say about the effects of the Maharishi
Smarak Inauguration than the event itself. Heavy rain and wind began son
after the inauguration commenced, which we're informed is totally
unseasonal.

We can certainly speculate on the large Purusha contingent, with
Maharaja, Rajas, Mother Divine, pundits, and many more having a
purifying effect through the programs we've been having here.

Even though the snaans we've had at the sangam, as mentioned before,
have an invigorating effect, the big camp on the other side is smoky,
and so a big storm to clear it all out is just the ticket.

The Maharishi Smarak Inauguration was delightful in the presence of
Maharaj, the Shankaracharya, and many other luminaries, and was brief
was brief on account of the rain and wind. But nonetheless it was a
marvellous gathering right next to the Maharishi Smarak.

Not yet complete, this beautiful structure already has a quality of
silence which I'm quite sure will draw me back again and again. In
the Smarak's Brahmasthan there is a marble plinth, covered in
flowers, with a large marble frame holding a picture of Maharishi. Very
simple, but it sets the tone of silent accolade to this structure in his
honour. In the four corners of the building are plaques which express
various key elements of Maharishi's timeless wisdom engraved in
marble for all generations to view. And all of this is offset by
beautifully carved stone columns and domed roof.

Outside the beautiful stonework continues in the columns and structure,
and is then crowned by stone roof work embellished with golden
kalash's. When completed it really will be a spectacular structure,
visible from afar in the most commanding hill near the sangam.

There has been a lot of bliss in this adventure; I'm happy I made
the decision to come. Given the the Smarak, the celebration, and the
environmental effect it engendered, I would venture to suggest it was a
cosmic event….

  [20130217-162251.jpg] 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.alkpurusha.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/20130217\
-162251.jpg?w=590>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Channeling

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> May I ask if this subject is about mr. navashucks comment about channeling?
> I found what Mr. Navashucks said about channeling offensive. As if I am some 
> demon for writing what I did? 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2D74-sfGA
> Anything on the internet is posted and it is here forever and ever anyways 
> and that is called cataloging, not channeling? lol
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74"  wrote:
> >
> > For those who have made unkind comments - first, there is no such thing as 
> > a "channeler" - the cognomen is "channel". 
> > 
> > You obviously know nothing about it, and thus should be quiet about what 
> > you know nothing about, but that hasn't stopped you yet. I won't explain it 
> > to you since you would rather go with the made up bull shit you have in 
> > your heads already.
> > 
> > If, however I were to do a channeled reading for you, you would, after the 
> > session, bow, scrape and acknowledge me as your true Lord and Master due to 
> > the amazing Energy you would experience. 
> > 



Being a failed spiritist seems to be a troublesome destiny.

[FairfieldLife] Repost: are those real??

[card]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp

[FairfieldLife] Are "those" real??

[card]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=6zSvpF8wmME&feature=fvwp

[FairfieldLife] The Thing Most People Are Most Attached To

[turquoiseb]

Following up on the awesome display of attachment we
have seen so far this posting week, I would suggest
that the thing that most Westerners are most attached 
to is their unrealistic view of their own sexual 
attractiveness. Challenge that, and they tend to
go more than a little batshit crazy. 

That's where being somewhat...uh...old has its advan-
tages. I got over any notions of being "attractive at
sight" to women in my fifties. At that age, given our 
youth-obsessed culture, *both* men and women tend
to become invisible. 

Which is a BLESSING, if you think about it. 

Think of the alternative -- the way of thinking we've
all been taught by the social conditioning we've been
subjected to all our lives -- that our WORTH as human
beings, men or women, depends in large part on how 
sexually attractive we are to other people. Speaking
for myself, it was a real pleasure to get past that
stage and to one in which I knew without question
that anyone potentially interested in me romantically
would have to be able to LOOK DEEPER than my surface 
appearance. 

And, fortunately, many women do. If they find them-
selves interested in me, my suspicion is that they do
so based more on my wit and sense of humor and my
ability to actually *listen* to them when we're 
talking. It's not as if I've turned into a real dog
or anything, just that unless you're Sean Connery 
women don't tend to look at older guys primarily
as sex objects, or expect them to be primarily 
sex objects. 

But women. That seems to be another story. 

Suggest that they are no longer instantly attractive
to men (or other women, if they swing that way, or both),
and many of them go batshit crazy. First they react 
angrily, as if they were *insulted* by the suggestion
that they were no longer even in the running for being 
considered sexual objects. It's like some part of them, 
the part that has been unable to overcome all the social
conditioning, still *believes* that their only real
worth in this world is being considered a sexual object. 

Their second reaction is even more conditioned, and 
predictable. Having been plunged into pure reactiveness
mode, they tend to lash out at the person who has rejected
the notion of their sexual attractiveness or viability
and *try to do the same thing to the other person*. Think
obba recently, not to mention Raunchydog, Judy, Ann, and
other wannabee women like Ravi and Jim. :-)

Now don't get me wrong...some guys do this too. Especially
when they hit their forties or fifties and start realizing
the surprising percentage of women they have become 
invisible to, just as a result of being older. But for 
whatever social reasons, men sometimes get to perpetuate
the illusion of their sexual object status by being rich
or famous, or whatever. Women, not so much. They have to
invest in face creams, hours at the gym, cosmetic surgery,
and sexy outfits that might, in fact, look sexy on a 20-
year-old but on a 50-year-old look as embarrassing as a
leopard-skin bikini on Phyllis Diller. :-)

Me, as I said in a recent post, I consider myself fortunate
that either my samskara quotient is lower as a result of
years of sadhana or that my testosterone count is lower as
a result of years of aging. :-) I no longer have even the
temptation to fantasize about my innate sexual attractive-
ness. I graciously allow those women who find me invisible
to do so, and focus my attentions on those who can LOOK
DEEPER, and possibly see someone with whom their first
thought is, "Wow...I might be able to have a hot conver-
sation with this guy" rather than "Wow...I might be able
to have a hot roll in the hay with this guy." 

The latter might, indeed, still be true, but it's not in 
the "foreground" of the thinking of the women I find inter-
esting enough *to* have hot conversations with, let alone
hot rolls in the hay. The fact that their radar is not
scanning *for* sex objects alone tends to make them more 
attractive, at least to me. As many spiritual teachers 
have said, "Sex is the preoccupation of the young; ideas 
are the playground of those who have grown more wise."

I'm just rapping about all of this because in the last few
days you've gotten to see examples of the opposite -- women
who like to think of themselves as strong, independent 
feminists but who go batshit crazy the moment someone 
suggests that they are not fuckable. And who then channel
that batshitcrazinessitude into trying to portray the person
who suggested such a thing as somehow "sexually impaired"
themselves. And, of course, there are the guys trying to
be considered women who pile on and join them in this. :-)

I think it's all a little retro, but that might just be
my age talking. I watch shows like "Californication" mainly
for the acting and the writing, because I really find it
difficult to *conceive* of the motivations of the characters.
*Everything* in their lives seems to revolve around sex,
being considered sexually attractive, and gettin' it on.
This preoc