[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
MMY never claimed to be enlightened. In fact, if you follow his exposition in the SCI tapes that the world's consciousness doesn't allow for people to become fully enlightened at this time to its logical conclusion, you'll realize that he was saying that neither he NOR Gurudev were fully enlightened. Of course, it is always possible that if you had pointed that out to him, he would have insisted that Gurudev was an exception, but I'm OK with MMY having blind spots about things, just like everyone else does. And of course, there are countless ways in which he could be partly/totally right and still wrong in equally many ways. The universe is a vastly complicated place, afterall... L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that Maharishisez is only valid when it agrees with some- thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever saw it happen. Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's definitions of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so willing to disregard them any time they want to claim something else that makes *them* seem more self important. And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the one who taught them for decades that the ultimate test of reality was one's subjective experience. As a result, they'll write Maharishi off as uninformed as easily as they'll write off objective reality. As for Ann's comment, the Fred Lenz - Rama guy *could* levitate, full hanging-there-in-mid-air-in-the-same-way- that-a-brick-doesn't stuff. Hundreds of people saw him do it, often in public lectures full of non-students who witnessed this. Does that make him enlightened? A lot of people did. I was never one of them, although I certainly witnessed this myself. I always believed what Maharishi *used* to say, back in the early days of his teachings, that there was *no relationship whatsoever* between the ability to perform siddhis and being enlight- ened. Apples and oranges. The only thing that ever led me to even suspect that Rama might have had some enlight- enment of some kind going for him was what it was like to meditate with him. As you stated above in your comment about CC, that experience was just pure, thoughtless silence. That was never my experience during the few times Maharishi ever meditated with us; quite the opposite, in fact. Good to see you're still hanging in there, Lawson, and still making good sense from time to time. Also good to see that you're avoiding the Standard Cult Response that so many here rely on -- reacting to some criticism of MMY or TM or the TMO that they cannot counter intel- lectually or rationally by playing Demonize The Critic. Do they think that no one *notices* that they do this, while never addressing the criticisms that pushed their buttons? Go figure. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Interesting article on atheism
A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. I would agree that the major drawback of believing in a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of human-invented moral guidelines. But technically, the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- essary in creation is if one assumes that there was a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist and then was created. I don't believe that to be the case, and feel instead that there has never been a time when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all in your face like some of the hard-line atheists out there. I liked that his conversion away from the AA-demanded belief in a higher power was instigated by conversations with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and leave the rest. Good for him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. I would agree that the major drawback of believing in a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of human-invented moral guidelines. But technically, the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- essary in creation is if one assumes that there was a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist and then was created. I don't believe that to be the case, and feel instead that there has never been a time when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all in your face like some of the hard-line atheists out there. I liked that his conversion away from the AA-demanded belief in a higher power was instigated by conversations with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and leave the rest. Good for him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ Come, ye sinners, poor and needy, Weak and wounded, sick and sore, The Field ready stands to save you Full of pity, love and pow'r. It is able, It is able, It is willing, doubt no more; It is able, It is able, It is willing, doubt no more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Great article. Touches on many issues I think about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ I liked this man's writing a lot. The article was worth a read for sure. Thanks for posting. What is it about mountains, though, that causes these kinds of 'enlightened' insights and experiences? Maybe it's the lack of oxygen. When I was at camp as a 10 year old in the Swiss Alps in Leysin I had my first witnessing experiences. Of course, not knowing about these kinds of things they freaked me out at the time - I was just a young kid. I guess heights, vistas and strenuous walking up hills might be the answer - forget all this meditation stuff!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation â becoming popular again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: None of that really seems to matter. There are many developing countries where TM is clearly popular. So if it less desirable in one culture, it will be more popular in another. Are you familiar with global economics at all?? Same principle, different need. If you want to continue as the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, please do, but you are wasting your time. These little impotent rants of yours have accomplished absolutely nothing over the years, in terms of whether of not TM is popular. You have dissuaded exactly zero people from doing TM. No impact at all. Do you know why you have failed? It is simple. Dissuading others was never the objective. These rants of yours have a lot more to do with Barry, than they do with Maharishi, TM, John Hagelin, Raja Ram, The Ganges, India, The TM Sidhis program, The Domes, Mantras, Bevan Morris, Jyotish, Vedanta, and whatever else you have ranted against these last twenty years. As to what it might be about you, Barry, that needs this obsessive focus on something you don't impact at all, I have no idea. But I do know with absolute certainty that it has nothing to do with Maharishi, TM, John Hagelin, Raja Ram, The Ganges, India, The TM Sidhis program, The Domes, Mantras, Bevan Morris, Jyotish, Vedanta, and whatever else you have ranted against these last twenty years. Bingo !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Germans are friendz of reeeelly stooopid Windoze phonez?
cardemaister: Germans are friendz of rlly stooopid Windoze phonez? Do those Germans still use a smartphone for voice? Go figure. Aside from voice, the three most important functions of a smartphone are contacts, texting, calendars and email. From what I've read, Microsoft Outlook for business is the best contacts software, synched from your Windows phone to your office computer or home-office computer. If all you do is talk to your friend a few times a day, just get a no-contract Cricket flip-phone. LoL! 'Windows Phone's most powerful handset yet' http://tinyurl.com/d597v7j http://www.expansys.de/top20/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition?
Where does the TM technique come from? From India and the Vedas? LoL! According to Mircea Eliade, only the rudiments of classic Yoga are to be found in the Vedas, and while shamanism and other techniques of ecstasy are documented among other Indo-European people, Yoga is to be found only in India and in cultures influenced by Indian spirituality (102). navashok: I think there is only one truly Vedic mantra and that is OM. The mono syllable'OM' isn't considered a true 'bija' mantra and there are no bija mantras mentioned in the Rig Veda. Bija mantras are 'seed sounds' with no semantic meaning - they are esoteric. The Vedas are 'mantras', Sanskrit words that have semantic meaning, that originated with the Aryan-speaking immigrants that arrived in South Asia around 1500 BCE. However,'bija' mantra usage come from the tantric tradition of Gupta Age India, which developed long after the composition of the Rig Veda. According to Eliade, the Vedas show only the rudiments of tantric yoga, that is, the Vedas are considered to be a form of 'Mantra Yoga'. But, the tantric yoga is part of the tradition of the sramana or ascetic tradition in India, which is pre-Vedic. What Maharishi teaches as the Vedic tradition is actually the Tantric tradition appropriated by Brahmanism, through the teaching of Shri Vidhya. With Vedic literature, he means the Agamas. So, MMY and SBS were associated with the Sri Vidya sect? Go figure! The Sri Vidya tradtion of South India came from Kashmere, which was a Vajrayana Buddhist country. Tantric Buddhism was imported into Tibet from the Swat Valley which is near Kashmere. Likewise, Kashmere Tantrism was exported to South India where it became right-hand tantra: Sri Vidya. Work cited: 'Yoga : Immortality and Freedom' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press, 1970 Read more: Subject: A decomposition of practice ertswhile abusers lore Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 6, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/ykqy7zh Other titles of interst: 'Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy' by Mircea Eliade Princeton University Press; 2004 'The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice' by Georg Feuerstein and Ken Wilbur Hohm Press, 2001
[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPrJNKJcRrs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPrJNKJcRrs Have you ever gotten a song stuck in your head for no apparent reason? The other night, watching the History of the Eagles documentary, among the many musical personalities flitting across the screen was Joni Mitchell. I don't remember whether the song itself was played during the film (although it might have been because the person it was written about loomed large in the Eagles' history and was onscreen a lot), but ever since seeing her face again I've been hearing Free Man In Paris non-stop in my head. This is a good thing, because to me it's a song about change, and release, and...uh...Paris, a city I love, and associate with freedom and liberation. The song was written about David Geffen, and a period of time he spent in Paris, blessedly away from stoking the star maker machinery of the popular song and, as I understand it, also leading to his...uh...coming out party, when he revealed himself publicly as gay for the first time. Suffice it to say that didn't happen for me when I moved there; French women made me more boringly heterosexual than ever before. But I *did* find living in Paris liberating, in many ways. As a result, hearing this song *always* makes me smile, and the last few days, with it ringing in my head almost non-stop, I have been smiling a lot. Working at home as I do, I even got to play the song on my sound system while working, and that made me smile even more. I'm really fortunate to have been able to work at home *since* I lived in Paris, not having had to go into an office on a daily basis for over six years, being able to play my music as loud as I want while working, able to work *when* I want. So imagine my surprise when I received a phone call from a trusted technopimp, asking whether I'd be interested in a gig, and I found myself smiling when I heard about it. The money is good, which is always a good thing, and it's on a really cool project, really hang-ten, future-of-the-Internet stuff. But it is also a gig that has to be done onsite, in an office. And it's in another city, meaning that I'd have to commute and live there during the week, returning home to Leiden on the weekends. Ick. My first thought was, I've SO been there, done that, commuting to work in the Midwest the whole time I was living in Santa Fe. So why was I smiling? It could possibly be that the reason I stumbled across this song and got it stuck in my head is that it was a bit of an omen. The office is in Paris. The gig is not certain, so I won't post any of these musings about the horror :-) of someone offering to pay me big bucks to live in Paris several days a week until it is. But I thought I should write down some of my reactions to this possible change in my lifestyle, while the change is still pending, rattling around in the Big Pachinko Machine Of Karma, the future still undecided.
[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.02
Another Castandean omen about Paris, if one were inclined to interpret it as such, was the discovery a few weeks back that the book I most wanted to read (long out of print and now available only for $500 or more) was available in its original in a museum in Paris. The book is an autobiography of sorts, written as a graphic novel, in the form of Tibetan tsakli. Tsakli are miniature paintings made on stiffened canvas, a little larger than modern playing cards. They depict many traditional Tibetan Buddhist subjects -- deities, teachers, mandalas, and esoteric symbols associated with certain teachings or initiations. In fact, tsakli are also often referred to as initiation cards, because they were often commissioned to commemorate someone's initiation into one of the higher teachings. I am rather a fan of this unique artform, and own several originals from the 1800s, which you can see here if you are interested: http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/gallery.html http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/gallery.html Anyway, what got me so jazzed about seeing this particular set of tsakli, this card-sized comic book from the 17th century, is who painted it, and who it was the secret (hidden even from Tibetans) autobiography *of*. The book is called Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama: The Gold Manuscript in the Fournier Collection Musee Guimet, Paris, (http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Visions-Fifth-Dalai-Lama/dp/0906026474 http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Visions-Fifth-Dalai-Lama/dp/0906026474 ) and it's just what the title says. For those who don't know, he was the most famous DL in Tibet's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Dalai_Lama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Dalai_Lama ), although not the most infamous; that honor falls to his successor, the Sixth Dalai Lama, my netnamesake, the Turquoise Bee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Dalai_Lama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Dalai_Lama ). The book consists of reproductions of this spiritual graphic novel, and as I suggested above, is prohibitively expensive. But the originals are available -- and for free, at least twice a week -- in a museum in Paris. I may be able to see it after all, and in the form of the original paintings, not reproductions. Cool. Sacré bleu.
[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.03
Another thing that I should have taken as an omen, thinking back on it, is the book I discovered recently. I didn't know it existed, having lost touch with its author (who I used to converse with for a time), but when I found a mention of it, it was in a review that touted it as one of the best he's done in quite some time. THAT caught my attention, so I ordered it forthwith, and have been delighting in it. It is, after all, written by one of my favorite authors and madmen, Christopher Moore. Unlike some of his other novels, this one isn't an *overt* comedy; it's a serious novel, an attempt to turn history into an alternative universe. The basic plot (spoiling nothing, because you know this in the first few pages) centers around the death of Vincent Van Gogh. According to tradition, he shot himself in a field in the south of France. But WHY, looking through letters that he had written leading up to his supposed suicide and noticing how hopeful they were, would Vincent shoot himself and then walk a mile to a neighboring doctor and ask for help? That's what Chris asked himself, following up with an even more creative question: Could it have been something other than a suicide...possibly even a murder? Sacré bleu, an idea for a novel was born. And that's it's title, Sacré Bleu. It's a meditation on the color blue that also happens to be a murder mystery, and also happens to be *gorgeously* written, and funny as hell. Chris is *incapable* of not being funny, and that aspect of him shines through in this novel. If you've ever felt an affinity for the golden age of painters in Paris, and wanted to know what it was like to hang with Toulouse-Lautrec, Manet, Monet, Pissaro, and other notables of that era (and the patrons who supported them, not to mention the prostitutes who posed for them), this is Your Kinda Book. It's to an earlier era of Paris what Woody Allen's brilliant Midnight In Paris was to a later era of literary luminaries. WONDERFUL book, so far. I find myself reading it and flashing back to having sat and talked art and politics and philosophy in many of the cafes and bistros named, and reliving the magic of those moments. Even if you haven't been there, done that in real life, you certainly can in the pages of Sacre Bleu. Chris has that rare ability to transport you into the world he's writing about, and allow you to *feel* it as viscerally as if you were really there. It's a lovely book.
[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.04
Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
No, it's great Barry. This is the most child like and excited I've ever seen you so I wish you the best and that this job comes through for you. What a cool,cool opportunity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.04
I bet EVERYONE here is happy for you and no one is looking forward to seeing you be disappointed. I've often thought you're quite intuitive, avoiding the word psychic which always makes me think of Psychic Friend's Network (-: Thanks for sharing your excitement, not only about Paris but about the work as well. For me, taking the train might be the very best part. I LOVE trains. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.04 Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
I both hope you get it, and hope you have resolved all the unkind things you said about French women, the last time you left France. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Transcendental Meditation â becoming popular again
Yep, and he knows it too.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: None of that really seems to matter. There are many developing countries where TM is clearly popular. So if it less desirable in one culture, it will be more popular in another. Are you familiar with global economics at all?? Same principle, different need. If you want to continue as the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, please do, but you are wasting your time. These little impotent rants of yours have accomplished absolutely nothing over the years, in terms of whether of not TM is popular. You have dissuaded exactly zero people from doing TM. No impact at all. Do you know why you have failed? It is simple. Dissuading others was never the objective. These rants of yours have a lot more to do with Barry, than they do with Maharishi, TM, John Hagelin, Raja Ram, The Ganges, India, The TM Sidhis program, The Domes, Mantras, Bevan Morris, Jyotish, Vedanta, and whatever else you have ranted against these last twenty years. As to what it might be about you, Barry, that needs this obsessive focus on something you don't impact at all, I have no idea. But I do know with absolute certainty that it has nothing to do with Maharishi, TM, John Hagelin, Raja Ram, The Ganges, India, The TM Sidhis program, The Domes, Mantras, Bevan Morris, Jyotish, Vedanta, and whatever else you have ranted against these last twenty years. Bingo !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ I liked this man's writing a lot. The article was worth a read for sure. Thanks for posting. What is it about mountains, though, that causes these kinds of 'enlightened' insights and experiences? Maybe it's the lack of oxygen. When I was at camp as a 10 year old in the Swiss Alps in Leysin I had my first witnessing experiences. Of course, not knowing about these kinds of things they freaked me out at the time - I was just a young kid. I guess heights, vistas and strenuous walking up hills might be the answer - forget all this meditation stuff! Or maybe combine it? Good question though, what is it about mountains? I think there is a silence when you get above a certain height that is so unusual compared to anything at sea level. Except in the desert, I remember sitting in the Negev desert in Israel at night and being shocked by how loud my breathing felt. I always promised myself I'd go back and meditate there, just find a little cave and blow my mind with some serious transcending! Probably come back enlightened after the first day, that's probably why they say in the bible that God lives in the desert. Mountains are different again though and maybe that is due to oxygen levels, but then I get that *silent* feeling when I'm up mountains in Wales or Scotland and they aren't high enough for it to be noticeable are they? I also get a good feeling of insignificance when I'm hiking the hills, nature dwarfs you so much that you get the sort of sense of perspective you can't get in towns where everything is man made and noisy, even the so-called countryside. I feel a trip to the Isle of Skye coming on! Some serious mountains there...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be serious. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. So having invisible friends is a sign of adulthood now? What topsy-turvy times we live in!
[FairfieldLife] Not-back-beat??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vgUi-zfLPU I'm used to play backbeat (2 and 4). I can't help feeling that the drummer's main beat, or whatever, above is on 1! So, when I first tried to play along, I had to struggle a bit to not to play the usual backbeat!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than THE BREATHING OF A LARGER COSMOS [emphasis mine] -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof! Sure sounds an awful lot like God at play; Lila. So, according to your statement, we live in consciously created universe, created by an overarching entity, The Larger Cosmos. This larger cosmos transcends the creation and dissolution of this universe, and any other. Yep, I agree - we can call it anything we want. Let's call it Barry. Then the question becomes, does Barry exist? Or is he merely a complex set of beliefs, waiting to be transcended? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no beliefs required for it to exist. I would agree that the major drawback of believing in a God is the baggage that accompanies it, in terms of human-invented moral guidelines. But technically, the only reason a God even *could* be considered nec- essary in creation is if one assumes that there was a Creation, meaning that at one point it did not exist and then was created. I don't believe that to be the case, and feel instead that there has never been a time when creation didn't exist. It is eternal, ever-renewing and everpresent. Sure, whole galaxies or universes may contract, disappear, and reappear from time to time, but that's nothing more than the breathing of a larger cosmos -- breathe out, and you've got a universe; breathe in, and it goes poof! At every moment all aspects of creation -- abstract or manifest -- were still present. I liked this guy's rap because it wasn't all in your face like some of the hard-line atheists out there. I liked that his conversion away from the AA-demanded belief in a higher power was instigated by conversations with a Buddhist who didn't have any need for a God, either, while still being arguably spiritual. And I like that he managed to find his way in an organization (AA) that is pretty damned fundamentalist in its way. As it says on the FFL home page, he managed to take what he needed and leave the rest. Good for him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be serious. I didn't say, or imply, anything about voices in my head. Try not thinking for another 30 seconds, please, until the voices go away. Rinse and repeat.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. I just did that very thing and didn't find god. Maybe you should see a doctor if you're getting voices in your head, could be serious. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. So having invisible friends is a sign of adulthood now? What topsy-turvy times we live in!
[FairfieldLife] FW: New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 03/03/2013
blog updates from Buddha at the Gas Pump http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e709a491029b04e745834d34d/images/star.gif published 03/03/2013 162. Jan Frazier http://batgap.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=3b6b4a128fe=16e07f16fe Mar 02, 2013 11:46 am | Rick Until the summer of her fiftieth year, Jan Frazier lived a life typical for a well-educated, middle-class American woman. A divorced mother of two teenagers, she was making a modest living writing and teaching writing. Following a Catholic childhood in … Continue reading http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=dd620aad1ee=16e07f16fe → The post 162. Jan Frazier http://batgap.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=4f223a7f4ee=16e07f16fe appeared first on Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=118b03f8e8e=16e07f16fe . http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/images/mime-type/mp3.png 162_jan_frazier.mp3 http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=117b1aca20e=16e07f16fe 53 MB comments http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=76d4c2bf6de=16e07f16fe | read more http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=085225fb3ae=16e07f16fe http://batgap.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=31e4acfa93e=16e07f16fe http://batgap.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=b0675f3090e=16e07f16fe http://batgap.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=ab33304ac7e=16e07f16fe http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e709a491029b04e745834d34d/images/frond.gif Elsewhere * http://batgap.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=c542272103e=16e07f16fe Visit My Blog * http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=75a9bbf5e9e=16e07f16fe Share This with a friend * http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=b24ca2a064e=16e07f16fe Follow me on Twitter * http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=0838b34553e=16e07f16fe RSS feed http://gallery.mailchimp.com/e709a491029b04e745834d34d/images/shim.gif view email in a browser http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=75a9bbf5e9e=16e07f16fe Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com. Buddha at the Gas Pump 1108 South B Street Fairfield, Iowa 52556 Add us to your address book http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/vcard?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=b0e5d0d53a Copyright (C) 2013 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved. http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletterutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=monkey_rewardsaid=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5afl=1 http://batgap.us2.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=62b7e50ba8598f35e2edf91d5id=75a9bbf5e9e=16e07f16fe
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that Maharishisez is only valid when it agrees with some- thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever saw it happen. Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's definitions of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so willing to disregard them any time they want to claim something else that makes *them* seem more self important. And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the one who taught them for decades that the ultimate test of reality was one's subjective experience. As a result, they'll write Maharishi off as uninformed as easily as they'll write off objective reality. As for Ann's comment, the Fred Lenz - Rama guy *could* levitate, full hanging-there-in-mid-air-in-the-same-way- that-a-brick-doesn't stuff. Hundreds of people saw him do it, often in public
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: snip Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant confusion. The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't happen. Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the idea of such performances being used as a criterion of spiritual development; that would be strictly against Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to attract attention to themselves in that way. Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible, there really isn't any commonality between the significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic) tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition. You can't use one to justify the other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.04
On 03/04/2013 07:10 AM, turquoiseb wrote: Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-) You're lucky at your age a company will hire you. In the US you would be considered over the hill regardless of how good you are. Hell, you would be over the hill if you were even 20 years younger. That's how screwed up jobs are in the US. They're rather hire someone cheap with 5 years of experience than someone with 6 times even though in the long run it saves money because the person with 5 years experience might take 3 times as long to do the project or screw it up entirely.
[FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.05
Ah, the prospect of having to choose a place to eat in Paris. :-) NOT exactly the least pleasant prospect to ponder. In general, it is difficult to find a restaurant in France that serves *really* crappy or mediocre food, because it simply wouldn't survive. The French love their food; no one would ever go back there a second time. That said, there are a few less-than-admirable dining experiences to be had there, and a few of them (both Worst and Best, of the quasi-American sort) are celebrated in this pair of articles: http://travel.cnn.com/worst-americana-restaurants-europe-554431 http://travel.cnn.com/worst-americana-restaurants-europe-554431 http://travel.cnn.com/best-americana-restaurants-europe-023346 http://travel.cnn.com/best-americana-restaurants-europe-023346 I may avoid them, except for maybe the breakfast joint. On the other hand, one of the first places I'll go when I return to Paris is a little Mexican dive near Saint Michel. The food is not great, but why I loved it when I lived there, and why I go there every time I return, is that they have a cheesy Mariachi band that plays every evening. They used to know me, and what I liked to listen to, so for years whenever I walked through the door they'd break into Cancion del Mariachi, from Robert Rodriguez's Desperado. They did this knowing that I'd always tip them well at the end of the evening if they did, but hey! it was always well worth the tip, and thus memorable. Only place you could get high-end drinkable tequila in Paris, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu4Hnbor9rI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu4Hnbor9rI For real French food, the restaurant I can't wait to go back to is in the 7th arrondissement, near where I used to live. It's modeled after a French country inn, with interiors to match, and specializes in dishes one might not necessarily find in gourmet restaurants in Paris. That is NOT to say that the food itself is not gourmet -- certificates from the best cooking schools line the walls, certifying each chef as among the Best Of The Best. It's just that they don't *charge* what other top chefs charge, and present it in a laid-back auberge environment. What is not to like about that? Ah, synesthesia. I can actually *smell* the food as I write about it. Cool.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Gee, Lawson, Robin went over this with you in some depth back in June of last year: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 You don't seem to have incorporated any of what he told you into your own thinking--but you never refuted any of it either. Basically, the issue is that the notion of performing siddhis at will in response to a skeptical demand is inconsistent with how Maharishi defined Unity Consciousness (which is how Robin experienced it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Well, from your verbal behavior I would have to say that you are a perfect reason not to do TM - of being in CC leads to the way you operate, no thanks to TM and CC. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that Maharishisez is only valid when it agrees with some- thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever saw it happen. Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's definitions of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so willing to disregard them any time they want to claim something else that makes *them* seem more self important. And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the one who taught them for decades that the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: You're lucky at your age a company will hire you. In the US you would be considered over the hill regardless of how good you are. Hell, you would be over the hill if you were even 20 years younger. That's how screwed up jobs are in the US. They're rather hire someone cheap with 5 years of experience than someone with 6 times even though in the long run it saves money because the person with 5 years experience might take 3 times as long to do the project or screw it up entirely. I understand. The client would not be able to hire me as an employee, because the mandatory retirement age in France would forbid it. But as a consultant I'm fine. Go figure. I also come with a track record that the client values, because the project is so high-profile. I have a proven history of having a Protestant Work Ethic in a country that does not necessarily value them. I simply don't miss project deadlines; never have, in my entire career, and never will, even if I have to invest double the hours they're paying me for to achieve that. Plus, this is a team on which I will be the senior person, working with a number of less experienced people and at least one intern, so they're hoping I'll provide a bit of leadership. And *without* having to be a project leader myself, which is of interest to me, because I've been there done that with that, and I'm a really shitty manager. I'm best as a hired gun and as an advisor, and in this gig I'll get to be both, without having to get bogged down in endless meetings and red tape and bureaucracy. All good, as dem Chrisschuns say. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip The best (or at least most important to us) of these neurological misconceptions is the last in the list: The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. You genuinely aren't aware that this is *the* most controversial proposition on this list of supposed misconceptions? The writer--a neuropsychologist-- is certainly aware of it. For him to proclaim that the mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways as if it were established fact is absurd (and possibly deliberately deceptive). He may *wish* it were established fact because he believes in it so strongly, but the relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. I see you read the Grauniad comment section ;-) Nope, I didn't, actually. I gather I'm not the only reader to have complained. Gee, more than one person having the same thought independently, will wonders never cease? But if you or anyone else has any evidence that the brain and the mind aren't the same thing, the rest of the world would love to hear it as it contradicts everything we know! Gee, I could have sworn I wrote, The relationship of mind to brain is an extremely perplexing issue about which there are many passionate opinions and nothing remotely like a consensus, nor, as yet, any promising approach to nailing down the truth. But not everything we believe, which is why I consider it the most important statement for US. Yeah, see, my point was that he pretended his opinion on the matter was established fact when he knew it was not. The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Did you have any comments to make that address what I wrote? Maybe you could give it another read, see if perhaps you made some unwarranted assumptions about what I actually said. BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. I doubt anyone has ever tried to suggest that the mind causes the brain. To say the brain causes the mind is more reasonable, like saying water causes wetness, but his rejection of causation either way amounts to a straw man given our lack of knowledge about the nature of the brain-mind relationship.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the philosophical position of most atheists. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while still being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not something only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical position. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The strutting about is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more strutting about than your own descriptions of your beliefs. The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious position for months. But I believe that correcting it again on this thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. Atheists do NOT proclaim no existence of God. Atheists don't know if there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the mystical reality experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight outside your own skull. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every other way might be more or less intelligent and thoughtful than I am, and just as sincere in their convictions. My own path of belief and non belief went like this: Born atheist. We all are. Conditioned into believing in Catholicism's theistic views before I had any philosophical tools necessary to evaluate such claims. Began getting a bit snarky about their confidence about all non Catholics burning in hell at age 10, which increased and generalized into more distrust for the next 6 years. First 16 years. Rejected the external church's view in favor of Maharishi's subjective state-based belief system. I experienced what I believed was the reality of God beyond belief. Next 15 years Began to question that I had an ability to reliably evaluate my own subjective confidence in my experiences. Rejected subjective mystical experiences as a reliable basis for belief. Rejected mystical subjective experiences as a class of valued experience for about 18 years. Began to experiment again with meditation states as related to creative trance states. I now believe that subjective states cultivated by meditation have a value, but am still evaluating what that is. Now I am more interested in the altered states brought about during the performance of art as opposed to passive meditation as a creativity enhancer. I am particularly interested in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a lack of experience. A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to interpreted moral values. What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate. We are not alone. We are this element's progeny. The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and another, is this same essential element, expressed personally. To wonder about the existence of God, I can accept. However, both an ego bound denial of God, and an ego bound acceptance of God sanctified through religion, seem childish to me. Kind of mentally retarded, actually. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the philosophical position of most atheists. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while still being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not something only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical position. Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The strutting about is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more strutting about than your own descriptions of your beliefs. The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious position for months. But I believe that correcting it again on this thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. Atheists do NOT proclaim no existence of God. Atheists don't know if there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would rediscover God with a vengeance. Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the mystical reality experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight outside your own skull. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every other way might be more or less intelligent
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Yeah. That's what Barry says too. I did not realize I was powerful enough to influence your worldviews. I am glad that I am. Yes, please do not do any TM on my account. In fact, I expressly FORBID you and Barry from doing TM, ever again. Do you think if I stopped TM today, my personality would begin to morph more like yours and Barry's? One can only hope. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Well, from your verbal behavior I would have to say that you are a perfect reason not to do TM - of being in CC leads to the way you operate, no thanks to TM and CC. From: doctordumbass@... doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi  Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that Maharishisez is only valid when it agrees with some- thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
On 03/04/2013 09:44 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: You're lucky at your age a company will hire you. In the US you would be considered over the hill regardless of how good you are. Hell, you would be over the hill if you were even 20 years younger. That's how screwed up jobs are in the US. They're rather hire someone cheap with 5 years of experience than someone with 6 times even though in the long run it saves money because the person with 5 years experience might take 3 times as long to do the project or screw it up entirely. I understand. The client would not be able to hire me as an employee, because the mandatory retirement age in France would forbid it. But as a consultant I'm fine. Go figure. I also come with a track record that the client values, because the project is so high-profile. I have a proven history of having a Protestant Work Ethic in a country that does not necessarily value them. I simply don't miss project deadlines; never have, in my entire career, and never will, even if I have to invest double the hours they're paying me for to achieve that. Plus, this is a team on which I will be the senior person, working with a number of less experienced people and at least one intern, so they're hoping I'll provide a bit of leadership. And *without* having to be a project leader myself, which is of interest to me, because I've been there done that with that, and I'm a really shitty manager. I'm best as a hired gun and as an advisor, and in this gig I'll get to be both, without having to get bogged down in endless meetings and red tape and bureaucracy. All good, as dem Chrisschuns say. :-) One thing I noticed though slowly after going back to working at home after leaving the software company in the 1990s was the lack of social scene. For one thing I only lived a couple miles from the company where I had worked so was still invited to things and often had a weekly lunch get-togethers at an Indian restaurant. Even after some of the other folks who worked there got laid off when a larger company acquired the company we still got together. So noticing this was slow. But eventually the large company closed that office and some still working there moved closer to the large company way out of this area. What also made it a slow transition was doing projects for a friend who was a former worker there who had his own software company located in Oakland. Though I did his projects as a contractor he would often have some social events. I still do projects for him but those are getting fewer and he has started using offshore companies such as one in Brazil (in fact talked of us flying down there to visit it). Like you, my friend knows I'm reliable and have abilities beyond just programming like artwork and music. But that is really a hard sell to someone who doesn't know me at all as they look at you from some wooden concepts they learned at a hiring workshop. Much of those concepts, having been a manager, I threw out as being ridiculous. I was also brought in-house as an employee in to the first software in the early 90s because I was a reliable contractor and the owner suggested me as a technical director. My first hire was a young 20 something programmer who didn't want to listen to me and typically thought he knew everything and much more than I. One day he came into my office and said he had this problem with some code so I went to his computer and immediately pointed out one line of code and said you need a 'b' there and proceeded to walk out. He was staring at me in disbelief. What happened was as soon as he told me that problem I recognized it as a very common problem in using that code which was for reading in a graphic. The graphic of course was a binary file and he was opening it as a text file which on DOS would add a character every time it hit the character which for text would be a line feed. Adding the 'b' opened the file in binary mode. That programmer eventually left the company and went to work for Microsoft and wrote back to the my programmers to listen to me because much of what I was having them do was just policy at Microsoft. After he left Microsoft he even wound up as a CTO for a very major company. So maybe you might enjoy the social atmosphere of the company. Personally I hate big businesses as they have too many rules. Small businesses are fun because you can help build the business and there aren't so many rules. In fact you wind up helping make the rules. Of course in the Bay Area these days telecommuting vs working at the office is a big topic as Melissa Mayer mandated that Yahoo employees, many of whom telecommute, now must work at the office. To me that shows how novice she is about the industry and how programmers work. For one thing some of the telecommuting workers may not even own a car (especially if they live
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Did you know we can record dreams? Or that thoughts can be tracked to the merest neuron. So where is this mind that creates it all? It's not the one that lives in our heads. Obviously it's an invention but is it a necessary one? I would say not in the same way I dismiss god. In what way is it a useful explanation, what does it bring to the empirical party? My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong... This is a bit weird...
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant confusion. The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't happen. Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the idea of such performances being used as a criterion of spiritual development; that would be strictly against Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to attract attention to themselves in that way. Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible, there really isn't any commonality between the significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic) tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition. You can't use one to justify the other. Judy, Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy. Otherwise, it may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
On 03/03/2013 11:57 AM, salyavin808 wrote: We've all heard them, we've all said them. But how much of popular neuroscience is actually true?FOLK NEUROSCIENCE Popular misconceptions â– The left-brain is rational, the right-brain is creative The hemispheres have different specialisations (the left usually has key language areas, for example) but there is no clear rational-creative split and you need both hemispheres to be successful at either. You can no more do right-brain thinking than you can do rear-brain thinking. â– Dopamine is a pleasure chemical Dopamine has many functions in the brain, from supporting concentration to regulating the production of breast milk. Even in its most closely associated functioning it is usually considered to be involved in motivation (wanting) rather than the feeling of pleasure itself. â– Low serotonin causes depression A concept almost entirely promoted by pharmaceutical companies in the 1980s and 90s to sell serotonin-enhancing drugs like Prozac. No consistent evidence for it. â– Video games, TV violence, porn or any other social spectre of the moment rewires the brain Everything rewires the brain as the brain works by making and remaking connections. This is often used in a contradictory fashion to suggest that the brain is both particularly susceptible to change but once changed, can't change back. â– We have no control over our brain but we can control our mind The mind and the brain are the same thing described in different ways and they make us who we are. Trying to suggest one causes the other is like saying wetness causes water. The whole article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/03/brain-not-simple-folk-neur\ oscience http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/03/brain-not-simple-folk-neu\ roscience I have a really hard time believing how scientists believe the way the brain works. Sometimes when ill it shuts down a bit (even when you have a bad cold) one can still have access to thoughts and memories just not so clearly. I hate to sound woo-woo but maybe the brain is just a receiver/transmitter to some kind of data stored in the transcendent level. Oh, might that be that vaunted woo-woo thing called the akashic record? Maybe so, but mankind might have to evolve a bit more to figure it out. On the other hand maybe were just fractals or just a very complex number that when run against another complex number blossoms out into all the information we have in our brain. That too, might take a while for our vaunted scientists to figure out. Imagine a whole movie stored as two complex numbers. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Ann, From what we know, no TMers have been able to fly. But IMO MMY was able to perform this feat. Otherwise, why did he make an explicit point that TMers can fly using his method? Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. Well, certainly a state of ecstasy, devotion and adoration of God in St Teresa's case it seems. From the little reading I have done about her it appears her levitations were an unusual byproduct of this intense experience of God and his essence, his love, the excruciating intensity of feeling Him within her body, permeating her Being. I would wonder if any experience during meditation using a mantra could even begin to touch such an event. Therefore I might, probably prematurely, surmise that levitation would require something far more powerful than mere transcending. St Teresa, from accounts I read, seemed to be in the presence of the Ultimate, the Infinite, the Personal God. Now THAT would be worth rising up into the air for. Here is a short synopsis I found on good old Wikipedia. They seemed to have missed number 3: The kernel of Teresa's mystical thought throughout all her writings is the ascent of the soul in four stages (The Autobiography Chs. 10-22): The first, or mental prayer, is that of devout contemplation or concentration, the withdrawal of the soul from without and specially the devout observance of the passion of Christ and penitence (Autobiography 11.20). The second is the prayer of quiet, in which at least the human will is lost in that of God by virtue of a charismatic, supernatural state given of God, while the other faculties, such as memory, reason, and imagination, are not yet secure from worldly distraction. While a partial distraction is due to outer performances such as repetition of prayers and writing down spiritual things, yet the prevailing state is one of quietude (Autobiography 14.1). The devotion of union is not only a supernatural but an essentially ecstatic state. Here there is also an absorption of the reason in God, and only the memory and imagination are left to ramble. This state is characterized by a blissful peace, a sweet slumber of at least the higher soul faculties, a conscious rapture in the love of God. The fourth is the devotion of ecstasy or rapture, a passive state, in which the consciousness of being in the body disappears (2 Corinthians 12:2-3). Sense activity ceases; memory and imagination are also absorbed in God or intoxicated. Body and spirit are in the throes of a sweet, happy pain, alternating between a fearful fiery glow, a complete impotence and unconsciousness, and a spell of strangulation, intermitted sometimes by such an ecstatic flight that the body is literally lifted into space. This after half an hour is followed by a reactionary relaxation of a few hours in a swoon-like weakness, attended by a negation of all the faculties in the union with God. From this the subject awakens in tears; it is the climax of mystical experience, productive of the trance. (Indeed, she was said to have been observed levitating during Mass on more than one occasion (The Interior Castle St Teresa Of Avila translated by Mirabai Starr.) Teresa is one of the foremost writers on mental prayer, and her position among writers on mystical theology is unique. In all her writings on this subject she deals with her personal experiences, which a deep insight and analytical gifts enabled her to explain clearly. Her definition was used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Contemplative prayer [oración mental] in my opinion is nothing else than a close sharing between friends; it means taking time frequently to be alone with him who we know loves us.[9] Throughout her writings, persistent metaphors provide a vivid illustration of the image of mystic prayer as watering a garden. [edit] Ann, Your research is excellent. However, I don't believe MMY would disagree with the points you're making. He stated that enlightenment can be attained by any of the main religions in the world. But he was offering TM as a alternative and methodical technique for raising the level of consciousness of humans here on earth. JR
[FairfieldLife] A Real Enlightened Teacher
A Real Enlightened Teacher Talking about Rajneesh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHw6wfWQ630
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 03/04/2013 09:44 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: You're lucky at your age a company will hire you. In the US you would be considered over the hill regardless of how good you are. Hell, you would be over the hill if you were even 20 years younger. That's how screwed up jobs are in the US. They're rather hire someone cheap with 5 years of experience than someone with 6 times even though in the long run it saves money because the person with 5 years experience might take 3 times as long to do the project or screw it up entirely. I understand. The client would not be able to hire me as an employee, because the mandatory retirement age in France would forbid it. But as a consultant I'm fine. Go figure. I also come with a track record that the client values, because the project is so high-profile. I have a proven history of having a Protestant Work Ethic in a country that does not necessarily value them. I simply don't miss project deadlines; never have, in my entire career, and never will, even if I have to invest double the hours they're paying me for to achieve that. Plus, this is a team on which I will be the senior person, working with a number of less experienced people and at least one intern, so they're hoping I'll provide a bit of leadership. And *without* having to be a project leader myself, which is of interest to me, because I've been there done that with that, and I'm a really shitty manager. I'm best as a hired gun and as an advisor, and in this gig I'll get to be both, without having to get bogged down in endless meetings and red tape and bureaucracy. All good, as dem Chrisschuns say. :-) One thing I noticed though slowly after going back to working at home after leaving the software company in the 1990s was the lack of social scene. For one thing I only lived a couple miles from the company where I had worked so was still invited to things and often had a weekly lunch get-togethers at an Indian restaurant. Even after some of the other folks who worked there got laid off when a larger company acquired the company we still got together. So noticing this was slow. But eventually the large company closed that office and some still working there moved closer to the large company way out of this area. What also made it a slow transition was doing projects for a friend who was a former worker there who had his own software company located in Oakland. Though I did his projects as a contractor he would often have some social events. I still do projects for him but those are getting fewer and he has started using offshore companies such as one in Brazil (in fact talked of us flying down there to visit it). I understand. I left the world of going to an office of my own volition, after having worked in the offices of ILOG in Paris for a few years. I still enjoyed the work, but an opportunity arose that I simply couldn't pass up (to move to the south of France and live next door to my best friend and Robert Crumb). So I threw myself on my French company's mercy and told them first that I was moving, and *then* asked if they'd allow me to telecommute and continue working for them. To my everlasting joy, they went for it. So I got to enjoy life in the south of France, and then Spain, and then here in the Netherlands, all while working from home, wherever home might have been at the time. That said, did I miss the camaraderie of the folks I knew in the offices back in Paris? You betcha. The whole social routine of logging out and going off the clock and then continuing to hang with the people you work with at a cafe or bistro or club or restaurant was WAY cool, and yes, I missed it to some extent. That's what I'll be going back to in Paris. I still have many friends there. [snip] So maybe you might enjoy the social atmosphere of the company. Personally I hate big businesses as they have too many rules. This is definitely Big Business. But I know the rules, and have no problem following them because, as your acquaintance who later went to Microsoft said, sometimes the rules make sense. Be sure to check out the season finale of Enlightened. Anyones guess at the moment if there will be a season 3. I've downloaded it but have not yet seen it. I have been thoroughly enjoying this season, and feel it's achieved a great deal more depth. I think Mike White is one of the most talented people writing for television, and I certainly hope it's renewed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only
manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that
is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific
perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same
phenomena seems like the best approach. Evidence of a metaphysical element
could never be proved. It is hard enough to 'prove' concepts of physical
phenomena have merit, to show that our conceptualisation, our verbal and
mathematical descriptions of the world have some useful kind of correspondence.
As our internal experience versus the outside world seems to be the source of
this mind brain conundrum, what evidence do we have that our experiences in any
way are non-physical? It is interesting that spiritual concepts have to be
described using physical concepts, like space, light, because we cannot
otherwise describe that which we conceive of as being formless. We give
formlessness pretend qualities so we can talk about it, but it is always
beating around the bush trying to scare up something we cannot grasp.
Now look what happens with meditation. People experience different stages in
the way they experience the world. Different systems describe various kinds of
experience, but they tend to boil down to just a few scenarios. The experience
of activity, the experience of inactivity (stillness, pure consciousness), the
experience of activity and stillness, and the experience where that experience
of activity and stillness have merged. (I have left out visions, which are
perhaps waking dreams)
When experience of activity and stillness have merged, it is no longer possible
to say they are different from one another. Thus the physical world and what we
call consciousness no longer are distinct in any way: they are the same. This
solves the mind/brain problem experientially because it no longer makes any
sense to assume there is a physical *and* a metaphysical dimension to life;
they simply are one and the same ('the world is Brahman' in Hindu, Vedic
terminology), and speculation about the nature of reality from the experiential
perspective simply no longer is relevant because one experiences the world as
relationship, connectedness, rather than cause and effect.
From a scientific perspective though, there will always be something to
discover, but here too advanced sciences are about relationship, not cause and
effect. When the relationships are 'known' one can determine the state of the
system at any time. A successful unified field equation, should one ever be
produced, does not describe what causes what, but how all the elements of the
system fit together in all possible configurations. For example the equation 1
+ 1 = 2 does not show that adding one to one causes two, but illustrates the
relationship of the concepts '1' '+' '=' and '2. The equations of physics are
of course much more complicated, but all equations show relationships,
equivalencies.
Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological
rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose,
hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain
were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you
psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was
possible to prove, what would that do for you?
[FairfieldLife] UG Krishnamurti Mocks Vastu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud1rCFNObUQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. Lawson, Lawson, Lawson...haven't you learned yet that Maharishisez is only valid when it agrees with some- thing that one of his supposed followers WANTS to believe? :-) Thus Robin will still keep claiming that he was in UC, and Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC, and others will keep claiming whatever it is that their out-of-control egos claim, regardless of what Maharishi said about it. And gullibleniks like JohnR will keep claiming that MMY could fly, even though neither he nor anyone else ever saw it happen. Personally, I don't think that Maharishi's definitions of ANYTHING are accurate, but it always amazes me that those who claim *to* believe that they are can be so willing to disregard them any time they want to claim something else that makes *them* seem more self important. And it's all Maharishi's fault. After all, *HE* was the one who taught them for decades that the ultimate test of reality was one's subjective experience. As a result, they'll write Maharishi off as uninformed as easily as they'll write off objective reality. As for Ann's comment, the Fred Lenz - Rama guy *could* levitate, full hanging-there-in-mid-air-in-the-same-way- that-a-brick-doesn't stuff. Hundreds of people saw him do it, often in public lectures full of non-students who witnessed this. Does that make him enlightened? A lot of people did. I was never one of them, although I certainly witnessed this myself. I always believed what Maharishi *used* to say, back in the early days of his teachings, that there was *no relationship whatsoever* between the ability to perform siddhis and being enlight- ened. Apples and oranges. The only thing that ever led me to even suspect that Rama might have had some enlight- enment of some kind going for him was what it was like to meditate with him. As you stated above in your comment about CC, that experience was just pure, thoughtless silence. That was never my experience during the few times Maharishi ever meditated with us; quite the opposite, in fact. Barry, If you believe Rama Lenz was able to levitate, then why can't MMY not be able to do this feat as well? However, by analyzing Rama's actions, we would have to conclude that he was not enlightened. IOW, a person who commits suicide cannot be considered an enlightened being. Which begs the question: did you actually see him levitate or were you fooled by his trickery? JR
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
You might give it a try - you might first pull the TM wool from over your eyes, then cease the mantra practice - as to what type of personality you would develop post TM, who knows? Probably not like mine cuz you weren't raised on biscuits and gravy - that makes a difference you know. From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi Yeah. That's what Barry says too. I did not realize I was powerful enough to influence your worldviews. I am glad that I am. Yes, please do not do any TM on my account. In fact, I expressly FORBID you and Barry from doing TM, ever again. Do you think if I stopped TM today, my personality would begin to morph more like yours and Barry's? One can only hope. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Well, from your verbal behavior I would have to say that you are a perfect reason not to do TM - of being in CC leads to the way you operate, no thanks to TM and CC. From: doctordumbass@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 12:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi  Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. The Turq is becoming stranger and stranger by the day. Take the rant he posted a few days ago when he went on and on about how OLD and irrelevant the TM'ers have become, written by someone who is OLD :-) I suspect the recent success of the TMO in Central- and South-America where thousands of YOUNG people are learning the Sidhis upsets him. Not to mention all those Buddhist monks in South-East-Asia who are learning TM in their monestaries because their own meditation doesn't seem to work very well. Everyone sees the direction where this is going, and it's not good news for his OLD, stale religion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
On 03/04/2013 11:55 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 03/04/2013 09:44 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: You're lucky at your age a company will hire you. In the US you would be considered over the hill regardless of how good you are. Hell, you would be over the hill if you were even 20 years younger. That's how screwed up jobs are in the US. They're rather hire someone cheap with 5 years of experience than someone with 6 times even though in the long run it saves money because the person with 5 years experience might take 3 times as long to do the project or screw it up entirely. I understand. The client would not be able to hire me as an employee, because the mandatory retirement age in France would forbid it. But as a consultant I'm fine. Go figure. I also come with a track record that the client values, because the project is so high-profile. I have a proven history of having a Protestant Work Ethic in a country that does not necessarily value them. I simply don't miss project deadlines; never have, in my entire career, and never will, even if I have to invest double the hours they're paying me for to achieve that. Plus, this is a team on which I will be the senior person, working with a number of less experienced people and at least one intern, so they're hoping I'll provide a bit of leadership. And *without* having to be a project leader myself, which is of interest to me, because I've been there done that with that, and I'm a really shitty manager. I'm best as a hired gun and as an advisor, and in this gig I'll get to be both, without having to get bogged down in endless meetings and red tape and bureaucracy. All good, as dem Chrisschuns say. :-) One thing I noticed though slowly after going back to working at home after leaving the software company in the 1990s was the lack of social scene. For one thing I only lived a couple miles from the company where I had worked so was still invited to things and often had a weekly lunch get-togethers at an Indian restaurant. Even after some of the other folks who worked there got laid off when a larger company acquired the company we still got together. So noticing this was slow. But eventually the large company closed that office and some still working there moved closer to the large company way out of this area. What also made it a slow transition was doing projects for a friend who was a former worker there who had his own software company located in Oakland. Though I did his projects as a contractor he would often have some social events. I still do projects for him but those are getting fewer and he has started using offshore companies such as one in Brazil (in fact talked of us flying down there to visit it). I understand. I left the world of going to an office of my own volition, after having worked in the offices of ILOG in Paris for a few years. I still enjoyed the work, but an opportunity arose that I simply couldn't pass up (to move to the south of France and live next door to my best friend and Robert Crumb). So I threw myself on my French company's mercy and told them first that I was moving, and *then* asked if they'd allow me to telecommute and continue working for them. To my everlasting joy, they went for it. So I got to enjoy life in the south of France, and then Spain, and then here in the Netherlands, all while working from home, wherever home might have been at the time. That said, did I miss the camaraderie of the folks I knew in the offices back in Paris? You betcha. The whole social routine of logging out and going off the clock and then continuing to hang with the people you work with at a cafe or bistro or club or restaurant was WAY cool, and yes, I missed it to some extent. That's what I'll be going back to in Paris. I still have many friends there. [snip] So maybe you might enjoy the social atmosphere of the company. Personally I hate big businesses as they have too many rules. This is definitely Big Business. But I know the rules, and have no problem following them because, as your acquaintance who later went to Microsoft said, sometimes the rules make sense. Actually the rules for developing shrink wrap software for consumers were being invented back then. No one knew for sure how you manage companies producing it. If you put too loose a leash on your team you might have a comfortable work environment but you might get bugs and late deadlines. After walking way on my own volition I determined that if I ever managed a group again I was going to be more black and white about expectations. Otherwise your team member tend to get in trouble. Be sure to check out the season finale of Enlightened. Anyones guess at the moment if there will be a season 3. I've downloaded it but have not yet seen it. I have been thoroughly enjoying
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! All Glory to the Raja's who implement this proven technology of making all things good, sweet and sattvic. Brazil Expands Mines to Drive Future, but Cost Is a Treasured Link to Its Past CARAJÁS NATIONAL FOREST, Brazil — Archaeologists must climb tiers of orchid-encrusted rain forest, where jaguars roam and anacondas slither, to arrive at one of the Amazon’s most stunning sights: a series of caves and rock shelters guarding the secrets of human beings who lived here more than 8,000 years ago. Almost anywhere else, these caves would be preserved as an invaluable source of knowledge into prehistoric human history. But not in this remote corner of the Amazon, where Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, is pushing forward with the expansion of one of the world’s largest iron-ore mining complexes, a project that will destroy dozens of the caves treasured by scholars. The caves, and the spectacular mineral wealth in their midst, have presented Brazil with a dilemma. The iron ore from Carajás, exported largely to China where it is used to make steel, is a linchpin of Brazil’s ambitions of reviving a sluggish economy, yet archaeologists and other researchers contend that the emphasis on short-term financial gains imperils an unrivaled window into a nebulous past. “This is a crucial moment to learn about the human history of the Amazon, and by extension the peopling of the Americas,” said Genival Crescêncio, a caver and historian in Pará State, which includes Carajás. “We should be preserving this unique place for science, but we are destroying it so the Chinese can open a few more car factories.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/world/americas/in-brazil-caves-would-be-lost-in-mining-project.html?ref=americas Unabated Violence Poses Challenge to Mexico’s New Anti-crime Program MEXICO CITY — The new Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto, campaigned on a promise to reduce the violence spawned by the drug trade and organized crime, and to shift the talk about his nation away from cartels and killings. But even as he rolled out a crime prevention program last week and declared it the government’s new priority, a rash of high-profile mayhem threatened to undercut his message and raise the pressure to more forcefully confront the lawlessness that bedeviled his predecessor. The southwestern state of Guerrero, long prone to periodic eruptions of violence, has proved a challenge once again. Gang rapes of several women have occurred in and around the faded resort town of Acapulco, including an attack this month on a group from Spain that garnered worldwide headlines, and an ambush killed nine state police officers in a mountainous no-man’s land. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/americas/mexico-anticrime-plan-challenged-by-unabated-violence.html?ref=americas From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com The Turq is becoming stranger and stranger by the day. Take the rant he posted a few days ago when he went on and on about how OLD and irrelevant the TM'ers have become, written by someone who is OLD :-) I suspect the recent success of the TMO in Central- and South-America where thousands of YOUNG people are learning the Sidhis upsets him. Not to mention all those Buddhist monks in South-East-Asia who are learning TM in their monestaries because their own meditation doesn't seem to work very well. Everyone sees the direction where this is going, and it's not good news for his OLD, stale religion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief systems by saying atheists believe that there is no God. The nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their opinions. For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people made up stories about him. And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing God. So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather than content. But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable to apply to themselves. I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a lack of experience. It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this exposes the crux of the issue: How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to interpreted moral values. I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would be most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are able to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, he is against them having the same civil protection as straight people couples from this POV.) What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate. I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of impersonal and universally compassionate for my way of understanding those words meaningfully. Universal compassion seems to include babies being born with no eyes sometimes, so the usefulness of the term seems diluted. Universal compassion seems like very weak Red Bull after all the ice has melted. We are not alone. We are this element's progeny. I don't know what you are basing this assertion on but I haven't heard an argument yet that impressed me. You are welcome to try but just asserting it doesn't help. The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and another, is this same essential element, expressed personally. I can follow the philosophy but don't buy the necessity for this additional universal thing. It is enough for me that we do in fact feel close to ourselves in a reflective state of self-consciousness and are close to other social primates within our very tiny groups by out natures. It is obviously not a quality that effectively transcends tribal groups too well so far in
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Never heard this before, Mr. Soss. Thanks for sharing. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John
Yes, the process of canonization is exhaustive. And years later they might decide you weren't a saint after all! Didn't that happen to St. Christopher? And fortunately levitation is NOT a requirement for sainthood according to the Church. Otherwise we'd all have to be named after St. Joseph Cupertino (-: Replying to another post: Just going by logic, I'd say that there is not another planet EXACTLY like earth in this universe. But other universes? Other dimensions? That's another ball of stardust! From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:37 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant confusion. The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't happen. Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the idea of such performances being used as a criterion of spiritual development; that would be strictly against Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to attract attention to themselves in that way. Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible, there really isn't any commonality between the significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic) tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition. You can't use one to justify the other. Judy, Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy. Otherwise, it may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
[FairfieldLife] Re: UG Krishnamurti Mocks Vastu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud1rCFNObUQ Great find, Michael! The real thing.. You want to fantasize things. Sorry. I don't care. I'm not here to free you. If Nader Ram was really enlightened, he would dissolve the movement.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur
That distinction about vata and kapha is helpful, thanks. Replying to another post: I've experienced that it's possible to be committed to one path and dabble too. I simply don't dabble with other meditation techniques. Simply with healing modalities focused on emotional or energy work. PS Being a fan of Numb3rs, I like the idea that we might just be complex numbers or fractals (-: From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur On 03/03/2013 06:46 PM, Share Long wrote: Well I ate some salmon first, good protein to buffer the sugar uptake. Usually I don't eat fruit but I did enjoy the pineapple a lot. My Mom's diabetic and my doc said I need to watch out for that. I like the idea of the doshas and metabolic rates. Here's a question: what's the disadvantage of fast metabolism? I can see the disadvantage of slow. Burn carbs too fast you get fat too because the body stashes the carbs away as fat. Plus you get low blood sugar. As for cold contracting, if I remember correctly, both vata and kapha are cold, yet one is fast, the other slow. Trying to reconcile some seeming contradictions. Vata is cold dry and kapha is cold wet. Air gives no resistance while water slows things down. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur Plus too much fruit may throw your blood sugar off. That's why a little piece at a time with the pineapple. Depending on what you are doing to pacify kapha it may raise vata and pitta. And that may need to be done anyway. One Indian MD who learned ayurveda from his grandfather actually teaches that reducing kapha by increasing the other doshas because it was easier for people to understand it that way. MAPI teas have those additional herbs to moderate that as do other formulas. Usually if one is kapha but has a pitta primary constitution you might want to moderate the use of spicy foods and ginger. Ayurved is not woo-woo in any way. It may seem that way because it is using the elements to explain things. But it is biochemistry. Primarily it will help regulate the rate that you metabolize your food especially carbs. If you burn carbs too fast you can get hypoglycemia or too slow same and then that can make you fat. Of course I also have learned other systems including metabolic typing. I like to look at kapha, pitta and vata as a straight vertical line with kapha at the bottom being a slow metabolism, vata at the top being fast and pitta in the middle. At least that is how it works with my body. Also basic physics, heat expands and cold contracts. Think about that too in relation to these. MD's need to become a lot more hip in this science but the pharmaceutical companies will hate it because there is no money in it. On 03/03/2013 04:57 AM, Share Long wrote: Oh, I see. I'm not as familiar with containers of fruit as I am with cans. So that's what caused the glitch in my memory. Anyway, what you say about samadosha brings up a question I've had for quite a while: if one pacifies kapha, for example, are vata and pitta automatically increased? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur No, I didn't say I ate a whole can. I said I went to the store and bought a container of pineapple slices because I didn't want to cut up a *whole* pineapple. The fresh foods section where the packaged fresh lettuce, spinach, etc. also has small containers of fresh sliced fruit. Much less messy than cutting up a whole pineapple and a small container cheaper too. Also a whole pineapple might have spoiled before I used it up. This was a good way to test. I only ate a slice (cube) or two at a time. I first read heard about returning the body to prakriti a few years back in several articles. Perhaps samadosha was assumed by newbie ayurveda followers. I recall one of the instructors at Dr. Lad's school telling me that samadosha wasn't so wonderful as people with that prakriti still had problems and correcting them often proved difficult. On 03/02/2013 07:51 AM, Share Long wrote: Well, you said you ate a whole can and it went away! I couldn't manage that amount but I ate quite a bit. Chunks. Organic. Very yummy. No comment about prakriti maybe being more settled than samadosha for some? Yeah, I always think the true saints of Fairfield are the people from CA who move here and stay. Mostly it's for their kids. Funny what you said about making a living selling crystals. Ok, I see what
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: From the viewpoint of a scientist doing research, experiments can only manipulate physical variables. Any conceptualisation of what is occurring that is given a metaphysical explanation is out of range. So from a scientific perspective, regarding mind and brain as different ways of explaining the same phenomena seems like the best approach. Just to clarify (again), my post did not take a position on the relationship of mind to brain. My point was that the neuropsychologist who wrote the article misrepresented his own opinion on the matter as established fact, when the issue is significantly controversial. The best approach in this case is faute de mieux. (snip) Perhaps the reasons for the debate regarding mind and brain are psychological rather than having anything to do with the reality of the situation. Suppose, hypothetically, that a concrete proof were possible that showed mind and brain were identical in every way and physical. What would that do for you psychologically? And if one were a die-hard empiricist, and the converse was possible to prove, what would that do for you? The reality of the situation is that hypothetically, Materialism can be falsified (e.g., by levitation) but not proved, and Idealism can be proved (e.g., by levitation) but not falsified.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: snip Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant confusion. The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't happen. Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the idea of such performances being used as a criterion of spiritual development; that would be strictly against Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to attract attention to themselves in that way. Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible, there really isn't any commonality between the significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic) tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition. You can't use one to justify the other. Judy, Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy. Otherwise, it may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a saint. John, I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I said. I don't think you read what I wrote. The saints who levitated did not claim to be enlightened, nor could they have passed that test. Canonization by the Vatican has nothing to do with the Eastern concept of enlightenment. This is all apples and kiwi fruit. Church sainthood and enlightenment are not at all the same thing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur
On 03/04/2013 01:43 PM, Share Long wrote: That distinction about vata and kapha is helpful, thanks. This might help: http://www.ayurveda.com/ Replying to another post: I've experienced that it's possible to be committed to one path and dabble too. I simply don't dabble with other meditation techniques. Simply with healing modalities focused on emotional or energy work. The mantras I give out here are for ayurveda and occasionally a tribal mantra. They are not mantras given me to give out by my late tantra teacher. Those are done personally and not over the Internet. The ayurvedic ones are commonly known but obviously not published by MAPI though I may be wrong about that. Tribal mantras are commonly known in India and used for different things. And I may also mention commonly known planetary mantras. Most of these are quite safe an harmless and not secret at all. PS Being a fan of Numb3rs, I like the idea that we might just be complex numbers or fractals (-: From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur On 03/03/2013 06:46 PM, Share Long wrote: Well I ate some salmon first, good protein to buffer the sugar uptake. Usually I don't eat fruit but I did enjoy the pineapple a lot. My Mom's diabetic and my doc said I need to watch out for that. I like the idea of the doshas and metabolic rates. Here's a question: what's the disadvantage of fast metabolism? I can see the disadvantage of slow. Burn carbs too fast you get fat too because the body stashes the carbs away as fat. Plus you get low blood sugar. As for cold contracting, if I remember correctly, both vata and kapha are cold, yet one is fast, the other slow. Trying to reconcile some seeming contradictions. Vata is cold dry and kapha is cold wet. Air gives no resistance while water slows things down. From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur Plus too much fruit may throw your blood sugar off. That's why a little piece at a time with the pineapple. Depending on what you are doing to pacify kapha it may raise vata and pitta. And that may need to be done anyway. One Indian MD who learned ayurveda from his grandfather actually teaches that reducing kapha by increasing the other doshas because it was easier for people to understand it that way. MAPI teas have those additional herbs to moderate that as do other formulas. Usually if one is kapha but has a pitta primary constitution you might want to moderate the use of spicy foods and ginger. Ayurved is not woo-woo in any way. It may seem that way because it is using the elements to explain things. But it is biochemistry. Primarily it will help regulate the rate that you metabolize your food especially carbs. If you burn carbs too fast you can get hypoglycemia or too slow same and then that can make you fat. Of course I also have learned other systems including metabolic typing. I like to look at kapha, pitta and vata as a straight vertical line with kapha at the bottom being a slow metabolism, vata at the top being fast and pitta in the middle. At least that is how it works with my body. Also basic physics, heat expands and cold contracts. Think about that too in relation to these. MD's need to become a lot more hip in this science but the pharmaceutical companies will hate it because there is no money in it. On 03/03/2013 04:57 AM, Share Long wrote: Oh, I see. I'm not as familiar with containers of fruit as I am with cans. So that's what caused the glitch in my memory. Anyway, what you say about samadosha brings up a question I've had for quite a while: if one pacifies kapha, for example, are vata and pitta automatically increased? From: Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Tradition? to noozguur No, I didn't say I ate a whole can. I said I went to the store and bought a container of pineapple slices because I didn't want to cut up a *whole* pineapple. The fresh foods section where the packaged fresh lettuce, spinach, etc. also has small containers of fresh sliced fruit. Much less messy than cutting up a whole pineapple and a small container cheaper too. Also a whole pineapple might have spoiled before I used it up. This was a good way to test. I only ate a slice (cube) or two at a time. I first read heard about returning the body to prakriti a few years back in several articles. Perhaps samadosha was assumed by newbie ayurveda followers. I recall one of the instructors at Dr.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Well, no, it's not clear at all. That's only one possible explanation of the evidence. Did you know we can record dreams? Not in any significant sense, and that wouldn't prove anything either. Or that thoughts can be tracked to the merest neuron. Or this. So where is this mind that creates it all? We don't know, that's the point. It's not the one that lives in our heads. Does it live in our heads? Show it to me. Obviously it's an invention It isn't obviously an invention. but is it a necessary one? Necessary for what? I would say not in the same way I dismiss god. In what way is it a useful explanation, what does it bring to the empirical party? The question is whether it's an empirical *issue*. My guess is you won't have the cojones to try to respond to this substantively, but I could be wrong... This is a bit weird... Well, I was wrong, you did try to respond. But you didn't try to respond to what I asked (see the original question above).
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own internal skepticism). What I said was: My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that purpose. Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this, despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that appear to have been directed directly at Robin. Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over it for the past quarter century. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Gee, Lawson, Robin went over this with you in some depth back in June of last year: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 You don't seem to have incorporated any of what he told you into your own thinking--but you never refuted any of it either. Basically, the issue is that the notion of performing siddhis at will in response to a skeptical demand is inconsistent with how Maharishi defined Unity Consciousness (which is how Robin experienced it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or useful? Are humans who could fly smarter, more compassionate, more beautiful to look at? Basically, MMY said that anyone claiming to be in fully mature Unity Consciousness who was unable to perform any and all of the siddhis at will, was fooling themselves. My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. This is similar to the check for being in full-blown CC: you may have 24 hour/day witnessing, but unless your meditation period leads you into transcending for the entire period, every time, you can be certain that you are not fully in CC. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief systems by saying atheists believe that there is no God. The nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their opinions. EVerything boils down to sound-bites for you guys. I have met plenty of people who express a positive belief that God does not exist. In fact, the nuances of atheism have been divided into hard/soft, etc by people who go in for defining such things. What you really mean to say, Curtis, is that YOUR brand of atheism is an absence of belief, which of course, at least somewhat approaches the agnostic world-view, which is that one can't possibly decide such things given the inability to test them properly. L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent expression of universal compassion. This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief systems by saying atheists believe that there is no God. The nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their opinions. For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people made up stories about him. And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing God. So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather than content. But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable to apply to themselves. I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a lack of experience. It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this exposes the crux of the issue: How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to interpreted moral values. I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would be most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are able to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, he is against them having the same civil protection as straight people couples from this POV.) What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate. I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of impersonal and universally compassionate for my way of understanding those words
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
Thanks for getting this ball rolling - one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, How do I know that my world view is correct? Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience. So far, the path I have chosen, has rewarded me incomprehensibly in terms of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent mirror of what is, and is not, working for me. On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent expression of universal compassion. This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief systems by saying atheists believe that there is no God. The nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their opinions. For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people made up stories about him. And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing God. So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather than content. But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable to apply to themselves. I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced to adulthood. Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based on a lack of experience. It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this exposes the crux of the issue: How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
The writer is obviously a confused man. He needs to spend some time in meditation to find out who he is. As such, he doesn't have to pray and still believe there is no God. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty of creation, and realizes that none of it required the existence of a God. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Nor is it healthy to see some article about rebels going to MAYBE negotiate or turn loose some hostages and praising the TMO to high heaven saying its a sign of Raja Luis's work in creating yogic flying groups AND that the yogic flying groups actually work when there are numerous news items that prove there is no Marshy Effect. Actually I correct myself. There is a Marshy Effect. The Marshy Effect is to numb people's brains so they suspend critical thinking and believe in things that don't exist and the True Believer's money flows from their pockets to the coffers of the TMO - that is the Marshy Effect. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own internal skepticism). Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience and understanding. What I said was: My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what Robin wrote about it. Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that purpose. He didn't have any such concern. Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature of Unity consciousness (skepticism isn't the right term; he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind by centers around. He believes Unity is a *real state* but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate Reality is the hallucination, according to Robin, a cosmic delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of individual will is real, etc., etc. By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he was in Unity. Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense, according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the ability to levitate is a test of whether one is in Unity. despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that appear to have been directed directly at Robin. I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin. Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over it for the past quarter century. This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start. Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind. What he obsessed about for a time was whether (as noted) Unity was a state that represented a perfect correspondence with reality, as he put it in that and other posts. Once he had decided that it did not, he began the process of de-enlightening himself. That's what took a quarter of a century. Obviously I can't vouch for any of this. (And we don't even know exactly what Maharishi said; it might make a significant difference if we did.) But I would suggest you go back and read Robin's post (two of them, actually, on this page) and see if you can straighten out your confusion about what he's said: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, Lawson, Robin went over this with you in some depth back in June of last year: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 You don't seem to have incorporated any of what he told you into your own thinking--but you never refuted any of it either. Basically, the issue is that the notion of performing siddhis at will in response to a skeptical demand is inconsistent with how Maharishi defined Unity Consciousness (which is how Robin experienced it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Anyone can claim he or she is enlightened. But can he or she fly? Nobody in the TM movement can fly. Is that really a criteria related to enlightenment? Is that anything a normal, healthy human being should be able to do? Does it have relevance to anything worthwhile or
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and power would he have squalled. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: UG Krishnamurti Mocks Vastu
You are right - but King Tony is too attached to the money, and the idea that he is a king. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: UG Krishnamurti Mocks Vastu --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud1rCFNObUQ Great find, Michael! The real thing.. You want to fantasize things. Sorry. I don't care. I'm not here to free you. If Nader Ram was really enlightened, he would dissolve the movement.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Tue 05-Mar-13 00:15:06 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 03/02/13 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 03/09/13 00:00:00 205 messages as of (UTC) 03/05/13 00:13:57 28 Michael Jackson 24 doctordumbass 17 turquoiseb 16 seventhray27 16 Share Long 15 authfriend 13 Ann 11 Bhairitu 10 John 9 salyavin808 9 card 5 navashok 4 sparaig 4 nablusoss1008 4 Carol 3 seekliberation 3 raunchydog 2 curtisdeltablues 2 Richard J. Williams 2 Buck 1 srijau 1 merudanda 1 merlin 1 feste37 1 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 1 Rick Archer 1 Frank 1 FairfieldLife Posters: 28 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: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi to John
Share, 1. Yes, the process of canonization is exhaustive. And years later they might decide you weren't a saint after all! Didn't that happen to St. Christopher? And fortunately levitation is NOT a requirement for sainthood according to the Church. Otherwise we'd all have to be named after St. Joseph Cupertino (-: There were many saints who were known to have levitated, such as Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Martin de Porres, St. Ignatius of Loyola, among others. Replying to another post: Just going by logic, I'd say that there is not another planet EXACTLY like earth in this universe. But other universes?  Other dimensions? That's another ball of stardust! There's a documentary on YouTube which proposes that if the universe is infinite, then we would be able to see duplicate earths. As matter of fact, you would also be able to find duplicates of yourself. However, some physicists believe that the universe is finite. Since they've found out the properties of the Higgs Boson, it is possible that matter in the universe will eventually turn into light. Within our galaxy, I believe that we'd be able to find planets that are similar to Earth and can spawn life similar to what we have here. IMO, life is fairly common and that it is the natural evolution of matter throughout the universe. Concerning other universes, Michio Kaku, a physics professor at CUNY, believes that there could be an infinite number of them which cannot be proved by current scientific technology. IMO, the black holes in each galaxy of the universe are potential portals to another universe. On the other hand, our universe is really an example of a white hole in which matter exploded from nothingness, or possibly from a black hole from another universe. Dimensions? I have an opinion about that which can discussed another day. JR From: John jr_esq@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:37 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: Outside of the TMO, many saints in the Catholic Curch were known to have levitated, including St. Teresa of Avila. So, levitation or flying can be used as a criteria to determine one's state of consciousness, specifically that of enlightenment. John, this is way too simplistic and creates significant confusion. The saints had no *intention* of levitating; it was involuntary, and in many cases unwelcome--frightening and overwhelming. Teresa actually prayed that it wouldn't happen. Any devout Catholic, moreover, would be appalled at the idea of such performances being used as a criterion of spiritual development; that would be strictly against Church doctrine. And the saints would never want to attract attention to themselves in that way. Aside from the issue of whether levitation is possible, there really isn't any commonality between the significance of levitation in the Western (Catholic) tradition and its significance in the Eastern tradition. You can't use one to justify the other. Judy, Levitation is the quick test for those who claim to be enlightened, in particular, those who follow Osho's techniques and philosophy. Otherwise, it may take a very long time to prove conclusively that a person is enlightened. Specifically, the Vatican has a very exhaustive method for canonizing a saint.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
Ditto. Best of luck. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: No, it's great Barry. This is the most child like and excited I've ever seen you so I wish you the best and that this job comes through for you. What a cool,cool opportunity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à-terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
You are a jackass. You do not have the first idea of what you are talking about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and power would he have squalled. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris v1.04
That's funny. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I bet EVERYONE here is happy for you and no one is looking forward to seeing you be disappointed. I've often thought you're quite intuitive, avoiding the word psychic which always makes me think of Psychic Friend's Network (-: Thanks for sharing your excitement, not only about Paris but about the work as well. For me, taking the train might be the very best part. I LOVE trains. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 9:10 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Free Man In Paris v1.04  Well, it's beginning to look more like a Done Deal, so I guess I'll start forwarding these musings to others. *Nothing* can be considered an absolutely Done Deal when working with the client in question, but it's looking WAY good, so I'll start posting these cafe rambles as a kind of occult whammy, the way I used to do in New York after interviewing for gigs that weren't certain, but that I wanted to be. I'd leave the interview and celebrate, as if the gig *were* certain; once I even celebrated by going out and buying a new suit to wear to the job, even though it hadn't really been formally offered to me yet. It always worked, so I'll try it again. The project itself, having now talked with the project leader, is exciting, literally the highest-profile, highest-priority project that the client's got going right now, and one on which its entire future business plan to some extent depends. I *like* that in a project; it really helps when you're trying to get something done and run into obstacles -- all you have to do is invoke the name of the project you're working on, and the obstacles magically disappear. But best, it's in Paris. It looks as if I'll rent a small flat there and commute via Eurostar. From past experience, that's just as fast -- feet in one city center to feet in another -- as flying, and almost as cheap. The bullet train is also far more comfortable, because you can get up and wander around, dine on something more than airline food, and drink good wines in the Bar Car, conversing with your Netbuddies via WiFi. My kinda commute. :-) I'll miss the dogs and the rest of my extended family, of course, but I'll be home on weekends, and fortunately they have no problem taking over my dog-walking duties while I'm gone. To be honest, all of the adult members of the family are already making plans to take regular jaunts to Paris themselves, the idea of having a free pied-à -terre there not being exactly anathema to them, either. So. A new chapter of the novel -- or pulp fiction or comic book...your call -- of my life. Cool. Sacré bleu. And what's fun, even for the people on this forum who wish me less than the best, is that it might not even happen. If it doesn't, you'll get to see me deal with disappointment, and have to keep working from home as usual. Won't THAT be something to look forward to? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
And yet with the mind of a jackass, I see reality much more clearly than those like yourself who apparently believe the old fraud was legit. From: feste37 fest...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 8:01 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi You are a jackass. You do not have the first idea of what you are talking about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Why would Marshy be affected by the truthful things people said about him? He was king of his own kingdom, got laid all the time, lived literally like a prince (meaning the money was all his) and had scads of people adulating him. Only if people's criticisms of him had shut off his supply of sex, money and power would he have squalled. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 4:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Yep, I agree Nabby! Grand news of the burgeoning rise of the Age of Enlightenment due to Yogic Flying in Latin America! All Glory to Marshy's Knowledge that we all know has been scientifically proven and validated! I remember one fellow who became really negative towards Maharishi and the Movement. Privately Maharishi commented: What is (name) doing to himself ? He wasn't bothered about what the fellow said, but what he was doing to himself. Just because they kicked you out of MUM doesn't mean it's healthy to be eaten up by negativity.
[FairfieldLife] College of Cardinals
The Cardinals shown behind the scenes, working on electing the new Pope: ... http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/4/38108.jpg
[FairfieldLife] ...and the next Pope will be....
Identity of the next Pope: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/Curlyhoward.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Thanks for getting this ball rolling - I think you get that credit. one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, How do I know that my world view is correct? Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience. Sounds honest and I can relate. We all do the best we can, especially in the area of discussing ultimate reality. So far, the path I have chosen, has rewarded me incomprehensibly in terms of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent mirror of what is, and is not, working for me. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) has an interesting distinctions between useful and un-useful beliefs.I am not the epistemological relativist they are, but I think it relates to your position. It is sort of epistemology by utility and I can relate to its pragmatism. But I am a bit more of an idealist in that I believe we can do better in our beliefs. It all starts for me, with weeding out the ones that lack good support. On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) I'll answer your other post below as it relates to the above statements. It starts with my assumption that you are not using a fundamentally different cognitive mechanism than I am. I believe we are both bound by the same constraints concerning how our experiences are shaped by beliefs. Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. I will argue that our experience is always shaped by beliefs, conscious or unconscious. We do not report, or even think about pure experience, we filter it through our language choices. And this is where our world view, which is actually a web of beliefs, imposes itself on our ineffable experiences. I think you are making a distinction about conscious beliefs which are a tiny part of our belief web, structuring and shaping all of our perceptions, even of ourselves and mostly beyond our conscious control. God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent expression of universal compassion. I am with you if you want to equate God with life itself rather than the creator of life. Life itself is so wondrous that it deserves all the PR the idea of the creator usurped through men's imaginations. The added value of compassion seems to be an imposition of personification onto life. As far as I can tell, this is a product of our lives as social primates, and doesn't play a big role in the vastness of life forms on the planet. I am a fan, but that is because I am human, not because there is a value of it existing beyond my human choices. This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. Even if you were able to experience him without any of the unconscious filters of belief we now know human's process their experience through (which I don't believe you can) as soon as you articulate it into any words you are imposing your beliefs, meanings and values on the experience. And you are not the first to claim pure experience beyond belief as an epistemological jiu jitsu move. The problem is everyone can claim this including people whose pure experience you believe are full of it. You still haven't addressed how you distinguish your pure experience of subjective reality as more valid than the Moonies or Born Again Christians. Or maybe you did by saying you don't know. And the fact is that you cannot, no one can. It is the fundamental flaw in subjective knowledge about how the world is. You will never be challenged if you just apply it to your own sense of your self and don't make any statements about the reality of the world. Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all onedoes is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. I experience thoughts and beliefs as subjective experiences. I am not sure your distinction holds up. I believe you are denying one of our most valued human capacities here by putting down beliefs. I get it that it is part of the move to make your subjective beliefs about your internal experiences seem more than that. But it denies one of our most charming human abilities: to form beliefs based on what we can consider on reflection after the
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Enlightened Teacher
I guess this settles it then, MJ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: A Real Enlightened Teacher Talking about Rajneesh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHw6wfWQ630
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Enlightened Teacher
I like old UG, but if you wish to think well of Rajee or Osho or whatever you wanna call him, nobuddy can stop U. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 8:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Enlightened Teacher I guess this settles it then, MJ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: A Real Enlightened Teacher Talking about Rajneesh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHw6wfWQ630
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Its kind of paradoxical, and fucked up and sad too, that Buddha was such a great figure - Even looking at his form, enlivens our dignity and inner peace - yet, somehow his truth has become lost, other than that simple representation of Self, in his form. I have four Buddhas in my home. The largest is in the garden, ceramic with a stucco covering, lotus position, on a three-sided granite pedestal, a Japanese style bird bath at his feet. Then two in my studio/workshop, one palm sized ivory and the other larger, carved from wood. The fourth one is in the living room. I visited the magnificent Buddhist Temple, Borobudur, as a young child, and have never forgotten its immensity and magic (Yes, I did touch the heel of a Buddha there). I also went to the temple of ten thousand Buddhas, in the New Territories of Hong Kong, or as we used to say, Kowloon side. It is an amazing place. A huge, ornate golden statue of the Buddha, flanked by two more, and on shelves encircling all of this, is the balance of the ten thousand Buddhas, each about 16 inches high, perfectly finished, in either brass or gold plate, a brilliant gold color, and each one, holding a different position. The last time I encountered an image of the Buddha was at San Francisco's Asian Art Museum, where I witnessed Buddhist monks and nuns creating an ethereal, beautiful portrait of a celestial figure, from colored sand. The art inspired by Buddha is truly nourishing and unbelievably beautiful. It is a shame that there is no accessible technique within the Buddhist tradition, to accompany it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Jimbo will keep claiming he's in CC I missed this misinformation earlier. I used to claim to be in CC, which I was. Man, was that painful! Just as it grew from TC, CC also supports higher states of consciousness. It must, just like a dirt pile supports a mountain. Wake up, and catch up, please. I have been climbing for awhile, now, since my proclamation of CC. It is no fun trying to run in place with you. Recognize that static awareness is not in the interest of someone making progress spiritually. There is nothing to defend in looking backwards, or remaining steadfastly in place. You however, with your denial of your subjective reality, your own emotional awareness, what is sometimes called the shadow, or the subconscious, continue to be stuck. The bad stuff, and the good stuff, sadly, for you, is always outside of you. You hide from your subjective reality, as many seekers do, believing that if the world would simply change to their liking, they would be happy. You cherry pick the highlights of your outside life, while continuing to not recognize that these are not highlights. These are expressions of this creation, available 24/7. *Unless you think you know better*. In that case, the creation graciously allows your denial of the gifts that could be yours, and allows you the continued existence of a childish life. A childish life is hallmarked by the refusal to face one's shadow, living superstitiously as you do, with your senseless beliefs. I call them senseless, because they are not direct, they are not innocent. They are merely in place to hold YOU in place, to hold you down. A person living a childish life pays a great price for their web of beliefs in themselves. It is a self centered existence, which it has to be, having fear at its core. The lack of ability to see one's subjective self, one's emotions as they paint one's thoughts, the shadow, the subconscious, causes such a warping of life, that one lives crippled by that which they refuse to see within themselves. So you can say anything you like about me, though I really, really appreciate those who operate in the NOW, the present. Chasing down and dealing with your particularly moldly ideas is a drag. Thanks. The Turq is becoming stranger and stranger by the day. Take the rant he posted a few days ago when he went on and on about how OLD and irrelevant the TM'ers have become, written by someone who is OLD :-) I suspect the recent success of the TMO in Central- and South-America where thousands of YOUNG people are learning the Sidhis upsets him. Not to mention all those Buddhist monks in South-East-Asia who are learning TM in their monestaries because their own meditation doesn't seem to work very well. Everyone sees the direction where this is going, and it's not good news for his OLD, stale religion.
[FairfieldLife] crime in mexico
the number of organized crime related homicides dropped some 28 percent over the last year. Other tallies from the newspapers Reforma and Milenio showed a 21 percent decrease and a 1 percent increase respectively (the substantial differences stemming from the ways they categorize organized crime related homicides). But by all counts, the violence has at least leveled out, if not fairly dramatically declined. http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/02/14/mexicos-murder-rate-plateaus/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interesting article on atheism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Thanks for getting this ball rolling - I think you get that credit. one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, How do I know that my world view is correct? Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience. Sounds honest and I can relate. We all do the best we can, especially in the area of discussing ultimate reality. So far, the path I have chosen, has rewarded me incomprehensibly in terms of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent mirror of what is, and is not, working for me. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) has an interesting distinctions between useful and un-useful beliefs.I am not the epistemological relativist they are, but I think it relates to your position. It is sort of epistemology by utility and I can relate to its pragmatism. But I am a bit more of an idealist in that I believe we can do better in our beliefs. It all starts for me, with weeding out the ones that lack good support. **As I mentioned, my actions are not based on a set of beliefs. I do the best I can, based on info presented to me. By the same token, I don't let beliefs cloud my view of how I am doing, right now. If I am hungry, I eat. If I need to reflect on something that I want to improve next time, same thing. It doesn't have to be a big deal. Then there are the obvious indicators - Am I comfortable, physically, financially, socially, intimately, and emotionally? Is life in its essence, here on Planet Earth, working, or do I tell myself one thing, and do another, or think another? Other than that, there are no beliefs to stand in the way of what I do next. On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) I'll answer your other post below as it relates to the above statements. It starts with my assumption that you are not using a fundamentally different cognitive mechanism than I am. I believe we are both bound by the same constraints concerning how our experiences are shaped by beliefs. **Nope. The cognitive part I agree with, but getting me to say I form my experiences on the basis of belief is BS. Maybe true for you, but not me. It slows me down waay too much. Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. I will argue that our experience is always shaped by beliefs, conscious or unconscious. **What is the unconscious? Please give me an example of its operation. If we are witnessing experience 24/7, how is unconscious even possible?? We do not report, or even think about pure experience, we filter it through our language choices. And this is where our world view, which is actually a web of beliefs, imposes itself on our ineffable experiences. I think you are making a distinction about conscious beliefs which are a tiny part of our belief web, structuring and shaping all of our perceptions, even of ourselves and mostly beyond our conscious control. **Yeah, again, you must provide an example here. This ooga booga unconsciousness I don't know about. Even when I am asleep I have self-awareness. So I don't know what it is I should be facing, according to you, when there are no more shadows in my awareness. Expansion to discover, of course. These unconscious shadows, no. **Also, we do have bodily functions beyond our conscious control. That's kind of a no-brainer. There is an obvious hierarchy for our body intelligence. I personally do not want to consciously regulate the near infinite transmission of chemicals and fluids throughout my body. Seems to operate just fine. **The only other area you could be discussing, in terms of the unconscious, is emotions. This, I think has much more with forming a world view, than any beliefs one may be using as crutches. Simple as that. If a person is fundamentally struggling all of the time, and not meeting with success, they will not feel great. Their world view will be affected more by immediate circumstances and individual choices, than it ever will by their beliefs. **Beliefs are a way for the ego to sidestep authentic emotional confrontation, within ourselves. To look unflinchingly, silently into the mirror, and dealing with whatever reflects back has nothing to do with beliefs. It is about being instantly honest with ourselves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Enlightened Teacher
First I had ever hear of UG, but I'm glad you like him. Everyone seemed to get a big kick out of his comments about Rajee, or Osho. You know how that is. Disparage someone for a few laughs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: I like old UG, but if you wish to think well of Rajee or Osho or whatever you wanna call him, nobuddy can stop U. From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 8:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Real Enlightened Teacher  I guess this settles it then, MJ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: A Real Enlightened Teacher Talking about Rajneesh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHw6wfWQ630
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own internal skepticism). Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience and understanding. What I said was: My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what Robin wrote about it. Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that purpose. He didn't have any such concern. Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature of Unity consciousness (skepticism isn't the right term; he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind by centers around. He believes Unity is a *real state* but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate Reality is the hallucination, according to Robin, a cosmic delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of individual will is real, etc., etc. But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same. By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he was in Unity. He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out that one has a way of testing whether or not what one is in is really the real Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, period. MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real thing. Robin has never conducted that test. The fact that he never believed there was a need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or disprove whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed himself. Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense, according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the ability to levitate is a test of whether one is in Unity. I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one could trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by whether or not they had floated at some point during their practice of the TM-Sidhis. This last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because he never learned the TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't report whether or not he ever floated. despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that appear to have been directed directly at Robin. I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin. What I heard was that MMY said this will test certain people's assumptions about whether or not they are enlightened. Sounds like a reference to Robin, to me. Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over it for the past quarter century. This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start. Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind. What he obsessed about for a time was whether (as noted) Unity was a state that represented a perfect correspondence with reality, as he put it in that and other posts. That is what I meant by really real. He was and is concerned that Unity isn't really real: it doesn't have
[FairfieldLife] Re: To card - mUrdhajyothiShi
Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts to you (both on this page): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read or don't remember what he wrote. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own internal skepticism). Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience and understanding. What I said was: My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you certainly haven't suddenly attained full enlightenment. The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what Robin wrote about it. Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that purpose. He didn't have any such concern. Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature of Unity consciousness (skepticism isn't the right term; he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind by centers around. He believes Unity is a *real state* but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate Reality is the hallucination, according to Robin, a cosmic delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of individual will is real, etc., etc. But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same. By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he was in Unity. He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out that one has a way of testing whether or not what one is in is really the real Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, period. MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real thing. Robin has never conducted that test. The fact that he never believed there was a need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or disprove whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed himself. Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense, according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the ability to levitate is a test of whether one is in Unity. I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one could trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by whether or not they had floated at some point during their practice of the TM-Sidhis. This last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because he never learned the TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't report whether or not he ever floated. despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that appear to have been directed directly at Robin. I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin. What I heard was that MMY said this will test certain people's assumptions about whether or not they are enlightened. Sounds like a reference to Robin, to me. Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over it for the past quarter century. This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Brain: More Complex Than We Think.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: [I wrote:] BTW, Maharishi's thinking is a version of Idealism, which has a very long history with many illustrious adherents. I'd very much enjoy watching you attempt to explain how data can falsify the principle of Idealism (matter is emergent from mind). Hint: I refute it *thus* will not be adequate. Oooh, illustrious! I'm scared. Very long history too, crikey. Don't be scared. But don't poop on the idea as if it were just one more of Maharishi's crazy notions, because then you'd look awfully, you know, ignorant. You might want to read up on Idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism (restored from your previous post:) The mind has a rubbish track record at working out where and what it is. Did you know the ancient Greeks thought the brain is there to cool blood down as it moves round the body? Marshy thinks it somehow creates (literally) the physical universe! That's the trouble with trusting experience in the absence of data. Now, let's see your explanation of how you'd go about using data to falsify the idea that matter is emergent from mind. Weight of evidence in shaping our idea about what the mind is. It's clear that mind is what the brain *does*, clear from EEGs mental illness and injury etc. Well, no, it's not clear at all. That's only one possible explanation of the evidence. Not clear to you perhaps, everyone else has realised that the ego kids itself into thinking it's this wonderful amazing thing when really it's a cobbled together bodge-up like everything else in evolution. If Kant knew what we did about the brain and cosmology do you think he would arrive at the same conclusions? Of course not, he would argue according to the data like everyone else does. Claiming primacy for the mind is a weird metaphysical luxury these days. Did you know we can record dreams? Not in any significant sense, and that wouldn't prove anything either. It proves we know more about where and how the mind operates than at any time in history and knowledge will only increase. Obviously it's an invention It isn't obviously an invention. It's obvious to me. See comment on metaphysical luxury above. but is it a necessary one? Necessary for what? Necessary to explain our experience of ourselves and the world, which is what science is trying to do, and doing quite an efficient and interesting job I think. The only way we will get to a theory of mental primacy is if we find something fundamental that we can't explain empirically and thus require a new kind of explanation. I mention recording dreams and neuroscience to indicate that mind is getting nailed down as a physical process of the brain.
[FairfieldLife] Mayday!
Another fun BBC thriller for anyone who likes to watch these dark things. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a462747/mayday-new-bbc-one-all-star-thriller-watch-trailer.html A 14 year old girl goes missing on the way to the May day fair in her village, has she been murdered? Who is the most likely suspect if she has? Actually it's easier to work out who *isn't* a suspect, I have my theory but it's bound to be wrong as this one is particularly well written and played. Enjoy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mayday!
Thanks for the heads-up. You were certainly right about both Utopia and Black Mirror, so I'll give this one a shot. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Another fun BBC thriller for anyone who likes to watch these dark things. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a462747/mayday-new-bbc-one-all-star-thriller-watch-trailer.html A 14 year old girl goes missing on the way to the May day fair in her village, has she been murdered? Who is the most likely suspect if she has? Actually it's easier to work out who *isn't* a suspect, I have my theory but it's bound to be wrong as this one is particularly well written and played. Enjoy.
