Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea? The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of being a poor thinker because he didn't understand that the laws of nature would have to be around before the particles they govern. This incorrect and funnily enough it does to Hawking exactly what Ed Fess accuses everyone else of doing to theists. Paying them an injustice by not understanding their position! I'll have to dig up Hawking's quote on why philosophy is dead. BTW Judy, I will torment you no longer. Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it seriously. It is indeed the very practice of *robbing* pomposity of its seriousness. Pomposity like Uncle Fester's is *based on* the belief that someday someone will toss his name around as if it's authoritative. Just as...dare I say it...Judy does. Making fun of the name drives the appeal to authority poseurs CRAZY. Just imagine how Judy and Robin would get their buttons pushed if we intentionally misspelled another supposed authority they love to throw around, Ackwhinus. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
TM teachers are instructed within a yogic-advaita framework - one that underpins their understanding about meditation and reality. Without exposure to Shankara's teachings and the traditional Upanishad methodology, it will be hard for any TM'er to entertain this original view. Shankara says: For there is the statement of the shruti : “The Brahman that is direct and immediate” (BU 3.4.1) and there is the statement, tat tvam asi “you are That” (CU6.8.7) which teaches [that Brahman] is already accomplished. This sentence “you are That” cannot be interpreted to mean you will become That after you are dead (i.e in heaven). Comans explains: Firstly, Shankara is committed to the understanding that the Self is self-luminous, for it is by nature simple, sheer Awareness (BUbh 4.3.23). Secondly, in accord with this view of the self-luminosity of the Self as Awareness, Shankara has characterized the Self as “Experience Itself” (anubhavâtman). We should therefore expect that the experience about which Shankara speaks is the “intuition”, “insight”, or even “recognition” of oneself as sheer Awareness. It cannot be a new experience of producing something that did not previously exist. Nor can it be an experience involving the objectification of Awareness. It is rather the “experience” of oneself AS Awareness, without limitations. For that is what one is, and so finds oneself to be, when there is the apprehension of one’s own fundamental Awareness-nature, together with the apprehension of the “seeming”, or the apparent nature (mithyâtva) of all limiting adjuncts (upâdhis) - those that pertain to the individual body-mind (tvam), as well as to the Lordship of Brahman (tat). TM teachers are not educated or trained to receive, apprehend or articulate such a view about the immediacy of direct realization.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
Nor need they be. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : TM teachers are instructed within a yogic-advaita framework - one that underpins their understanding about meditation and reality. Without exposure to Shankara's teachings and the traditional Upanishad methodology, it will be hard for any TM'er to entertain this original view. Shankara says: For there is the statement of the shruti : “The Brahman that is direct and immediate” (BU 3.4.1) and there is the statement, tat tvam asi “you are That” (CU6.8.7) which teaches [that Brahman] is already accomplished. This sentence “you are That” cannot be interpreted to mean you will become That after you are dead (i.e in heaven). Comans explains: Firstly, Shankara is committed to the understanding that the Self is self-luminous, for it is by nature simple, sheer Awareness (BUbh 4.3.23). Secondly, in accord with this view of the self-luminosity of the Self as Awareness, Shankara has characterized the Self as “Experience Itself” (anubhavâtman). We should therefore expect that the experience about which Shankara speaks is the “intuition”, “insight”, or even “recognition” of oneself as sheer Awareness. It cannot be a new experience of producing something that did not previously exist. Nor can it be an experience involving the objectification of Awareness. It is rather the “experience” of oneself AS Awareness, without limitations. For that is what one is, and so finds oneself to be, when there is the apprehension of one’s own fundamental Awareness-nature, together with the apprehension of the “seeming”, or the apparent nature (mithyâtva) of all limiting adjuncts (upâdhis) - those that pertain to the individual body-mind (tvam), as well as to the Lordship of Brahman (tat). TM teachers are not educated or trained to receive, apprehend or articulate such a view about the immediacy of direct realization.
[FairfieldLife] Shikan-taza is NOT Silent Illumination (Mo-Chao)
No one will ever get enlightened although they might get some kind of aufklärung. What is yours will always be yours - what is not yours will never be yours. If you have it, it will be given to you. If you don't have it, it will be taken away from you. Blah Blah. So much for lighten-mint Shikantaza and Silent Illumination Lecture given by master Sheng-yen during the Dec. 1993 Ch’an retreat The Japanese term “shikantaza” literally means “just sitting.” Its original Chinese name, ,mo-chao means “silent illumination.” “Silent” refers to not using any specific method of meditation and having no thoughts in your mind. “Illumination” means clarity. You are very clear about the state of your body and mind. When the method of silent illumination was taken to Japan it was changed somewhat. The name given to it, “just sitting”, means just paying attention to sitting or just keeping the physical posture of sitting, and this was the new emphasis. The word “silent” was removed from the name of the method and the understanding that the mind should be clear and have no thoughts was not emphasized. In silent illumination, “just sitting” is only the first step.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
Don't worry - you needn't be.
[FairfieldLife] Time to buy NOK?
Strong buy! NYSE http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/NOK http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/NOK 7.34 USD...
[FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
FWIW, I seem to recall having seen tattvamasi (that's how it's spelled in DN, that is, without any spaces between the individual words) read as 'tattvam asi' , something like '(you) are the truth'. Be it as it may, the personal pronoun (tvam) is not necessary, because the verb form (asi) clearly expresses the fact that the second person singular is meant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to produce winners ?
It's just an idea. YMMV. It's your idea because you are lost in negative ideas. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] More Mother India
Qigong is supposed to bring balance to the mind so something in MJ went Qiwrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 4/17/2014 2:02 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: If you ever wondered what Shikantaza Zazen Buddhism does to a poor soul, now you know :-) Apparently he has never practiced Shikentaza Zazen Buddhism, so I would attribute his erratic and obsessive behavior to practicing Chinese communist qigong for the past two years. The whole object of communist party qigong is to discredit and ban any other practice that might have as it's goal the individual enlightened state or world peace. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
[FairfieldLife] A Different Take On Asthanga-Yoga
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi interprets the Yoga Sutras uniquely, apparently contradicting many assumptions underlying modern Ashtanga Yoga practices. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/03/a-different-take-on-ashtanga-yoga-william-f-sands/ http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/03/a-different-take-on-ashtanga-yoga-william-f-sands/ Maharishi on Ashtanga Yoga: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE
Re: [FairfieldLife] More Mother India
Qi Gong is supposed to bring balance to the mind so something with MJ went Qi Wrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 4/17/2014 2:02 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: If you ever wondered what Shikantaza Zazen Buddhism does to a poor soul, now you know :-) Apparently he has never practiced Shikentaza Zazen Buddhism, so I would attribute his erratic and obsessive behavior to practicing Chinese communist qigong for the past two years. The whole object of communist party qigong is to discredit and ban any other practice that might have as it's goal the individual enlightened state or world peace. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
[FairfieldLife] What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to produce winners ?
In his blind negativity, brought upon his mind by twisted practices found in the stale and outdated Buddhism of yesterday, the Turq forgets that successful TM'ers, people he admire like Jerry Seinfeld and Clint Eastwood are the people in the forefront of recruiting people to real meditation these days. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's just an idea. YMMV. It's your idea because you are lost in negative ideas. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Intellectual McCarthyism
I'm quite taken with this phrase I thought up a few days ago. It really captures a certain set of tactics I see everywhere on the Internet. I would define Intellectual McCarthyism (IM) as the attempt by a speaker or writer to announce or imply that they have won a debate or argument by referencing arguments that have never been presented, and citing them as being as authoritative as if they had been. I'm not comparing the politics of the people who do this to Joe McCarthy, of course, just to his tactics and personality. He was a bully. And one of his most famous bully tactics was to wave a blank piece of paper and say, I have in my hand a list of the 57 known communists working in the State Department (or White House or movie industry or whatever his target was that week). There is a great deal of persuasion in such a statement, and a veritable shitload of assumption. The statement *assumes*, for example, that there ARE communists in the State Department. All that's worth quibbling about is how many of them there are. The persuasion is the attempt to get the respondent to argue about the number rather than the assumption itself. Add to this the fact that these lists never existed in the first place, and you've got a real whopper of a mind-control technique. So how is this different from pointing to a supposedly authoritative set of opinions about classical theism, citing them as the strongest argument for theism, and then refusing to even synopsize those opinions? IMO the attempt to do so is again a distraction, an attempt to get the respondent to react to the supposedly important difference in how one imagines God -- as a being or as Being -- as if *that* is the thing that must be argued, not the assumption that there is a God in the first place. It's not how you choose to describe God that is important. It's that you believe there is one. It's like trying to lure someone into a debate about whether licking a unicorn's horn tastes more like honey or cherry-vanilla. Arguments about what it tastes like are moot if there are no unicorns.
[FairfieldLife] Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
You are right. In the early days of my TM junkie phase, I tried and tried to get my best friend from high school to do TM. He refused over and over. His reason? Jackson, I don't need it. I'm already happy. He went on to have a career in textile manufacturing and eventually became a purchaser for the Komatsu Corporation. Got married, raised to great kids and is still happy today. I couldn't argue with his reasoning them and I thank God today I was not able to convince him to join the Marshy sez cult. On Fri, 4/18/14, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 8:32 AM One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] More Mother India
That is only because the world is as you are and your mind is unbalanced, severely unbalanced. We who know Benjy Creme is a marginally effective liar and con artist and Marshy was a very successful liar and con artist are very finely balanced. On Fri, 4/18/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] More Mother India To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 9:25 AM Qigong is supposed to bring balance to the mind so something in MJ went Qiwrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 4/17/2014 2:02 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: If you ever wondered what Shikantaza Zazen Buddhism does to a poor soul, now you know :-) Apparently he has never practiced Shikentaza Zazen Buddhism, so I would attribute his erratic and obsessive behavior to practicing Chinese communist qigong for the past two years. The whole object of communist party qigong is to discredit and ban any other practice that might have as it's goal the individual enlightened state or world peace. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
Incorrect Lawson - David Lynch doesn't offer shit for free. Why do you think he is ALWAYS begging for donations to FUND the programs? The TMO ALWAYS gets paid, no matter what. EVERYTHING they do is a scam to make money so they can live big. On Fri, 4/18/14, lengli...@cox.net lengli...@cox.net wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 11:10 AM The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
Probably his Overlords told him so in a desperate attempt to try to stop the rise of Sattwa in the world in order for old and stale religions not to be exposed as the crap it is. Not that the Turq is able, but he certainly tries :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
By asking for donations to finance free Initiations David Lynch takes from the rich and gives to the poor, a modern day Robin Hood. No wonders the devotees of stale, rigid and outdated religions representing the old ways of doing things hate him. Unfortunately the representatives of their outgoing energies are plenty here on FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
For the edification of the lurking reporters, the Overlords Perfect TMer Nabby is referring to are my supposed Buddhist Overlords (even though I've told him I'm not a Buddhist), not the disembodied spirit or extraterrestrials Overlords from whom Benjamin Creme gets *his* instructions and information. World of difference. :-) From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:28 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ? Probably his Overlords told him so in a desperate attempt to try to stop the rise of Sattwa in the world in order for old and stale religions not to be exposed as the crap it is. Not that the Turq is able, but he certainly tries :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
Again just for the edification of the lurker press, Perfect TMer Nabby should remind them that -- as he has said here many times -- many of the TM critics here are being paid by the CIA. It is still an open question which Overlord pays better -- the Dalai Lama or the CIA. And there is the question as to whether some of them are double-dipping and being paid by both Overlords. Perhaps Nabby can answer these nagging questions for us. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:34 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ? By asking for donations to finance free Initiations David Lynch takes from the rich and gives to the poor, a modern day Robin Hood. No wonders the devotees of stale, rigid and outdated religions representing the old ways of doing things hate him. Unfortunately the representatives of their outgoing energies are plenty here on FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Reggae on a lazy Friday afternoon
My local pub has just switched the sound system over to a Jamaican/Bob Marley/reggae mix, and I must admit that the music lifts my spirits somewhat and has me boppin' at the keyboard. It may be that religion thang -- Rastafarianism after all being associated with happy herbs like ganja. I'm getting a contact high from the music. After all, many of these musicians I'm listening to are so toasted that the slow, classic Thunk-thunk-Thunk-thunk rhythm of reggae is not really a stylistic choice. They're so stoned that they really can't play any faster than that. They've got a real happy cannabis buzz going for them, even when they're singing about Babylon. Since I've never really been to Jamaica (or smoked a Marley-size spliff, for that matter), my main associations with reggae come from my Sitges days. Living only a block from the beach, working at home and thus not required to keep any particular hours, I could take off any time during the day and wander down to the closest beach chiringito, order a coffee or a beer, and then just kick back and listen to the seemingly constant reggae that they seemed to prefer. It was good kick-back music, and the Thunk-thunk-Thunk-thunk rhythm wasn't bad as a soundtrack to the movie of topless Spanish maidens walking by, either. Often I'd take my dogs Paris and Pippin with me. I secretly suspected both of them as being closet lechers, because they never failed to raise their heads and watch the same babes I was watching. All to a reggae beat. Oh. Was I rambling? My bad. I'd better get back to dumping on TM, the TMO, Maharishi, and Sattva Itself, or my CIA and Buddhist Overlords might dock my pay. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. So, that would be my take on the issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
[FairfieldLife] Mantras and health conditions
Im not suggesting anyone reduce the time that they devote to any of Maharishi's techniques to do these, also the mantras that include OM could be listened to instead or use Shree instead of OM as per Brahmananda Saraswati Guru Dev http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/userfiles/file/Spiritual%20Healing%20Chants%20_Opt.pdf http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/userfiles/file/Spiritual%20Healing%20Chants%20_Opt.pdf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
this should be posted periodically along with the terms post ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
When I started I was a little mixed up. Hormones were raging, doing some drugs, generally confused. TM offered some respite, a little tranquility. In my case, my participation was also intertwined with a girlfriend. Later it did become something else, a spiritual path, at least for quite a spell, But it did launch me in that direction even if now my focus has changed somewhat. Now my son is going through many of those same issues. In his case, I wish he could find something, but I have to let him sort it out, and offer some guidance when he periodically asks me for some. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : You are right. In the early days of my TM junkie phase, I tried and tried to get my best friend from high school to do TM. He refused over and over. His reason? Jackson, I don't need it. I'm already happy. He went on to have a career in textile manufacturing and eventually became a purchaser for the Komatsu Corporation. Got married, raised to great kids and is still happy today. I couldn't argue with his reasoning them and I thank God today I was not able to convince him to join the Marshy sez cult. On Fri, 4/18/14, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com; FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 8:32 AM One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
It's a tricky question. First of all the CIA lost interest in the TMO already 29 years ago since they found it is a harmless org. The people at Langley are not stupid and only started their inquiries because that peanut-farmer asked them to. Plenty of people were on their payrolls at the time including some Initiators and members of Purusha. One fellow I know was caught red-handed when posting a report in a mailbox during a project in Asia. Maharishi didn't become the least upset and simply asked the fellow if he would give up his association with the CIA and continue to work for us, he agreed and is still fulltime. Then there is the issue with that Lama fellow. Unfortunately he is next to broke and has little funds to spare as most Governments sees him as a clown. My thinking these days is that the naysayers and dwellers in the comfy old outdated systems about to crumble, so furiously opposing change are not paid for their role. At least not that I am aware of. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Again just for the edification of the lurker press, Perfect TMer Nabby should remind them that -- as he has said here many times -- many of the TM critics here are being paid by the CIA. It is still an open question which Overlord pays better -- the Dalai Lama or the CIA. And there is the question as to whether some of them are double-dipping and being paid by both Overlords. Perhaps Nabby can answer these nagging questions for us. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:34 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ? By asking for donations to finance free Initiations David Lynch takes from the rich and gives to the poor, a modern day Robin Hood. No wonders the devotees of stale, rigid and outdated religions representing the old ways of doing things hate him. Unfortunately the representatives of their outgoing energies are plenty here on FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Very nice report Buck, thanks for posting. I'll soon have a community meeting myself in Nice where I'm contemplating buying a house. Seems there are quite a few meditators down there in the sun :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
[FairfieldLife] Shreemad Bhagavatam
you missed the best part http://vedabase.net/sb/12/2/24/en http://vedabase.net/sb/12/2/24/en hmm I wonder when that would be? you could even use certain functions in jhora to search it rather quickly!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
From: steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. I don't agree with your premise, Steve, but I shall reply because the reggae soundtrack is still playing and I feel like it. NOTHING could fit better into the description can't really be resolved one way or another than the existence of God. What I've railed against is trying to derail that discussion into nitpicking about what exactly one considers God to be. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. I cannot presume to speak for all atheists, and do not. Me, I see no conflict whatsoever between believing in reincarnation and karma and being an atheist. Apples and oranges. No God is required to facilitate recycling. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. You could try asking. For example, I believe in many things, most of them positive. I believe in living one's life as if it matters, even though I firmly believe that on a fundamental level it doesn't. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. Name two. Re my earlier post about Rhetorical Fallacies, this is called a straw man, Steve. Clearly, not everyone who is an atheist assumes that life as we know it ends at physical death, or that birth implies a tabula rasa. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Cite examples of such replies here on Fairfield Life. We'll wait. Often just a lame default, I think. So, that would be my take on the issue. And a little of mine. I'm an atheist for purely pragmatic, Occam's Razor reasons. No need to postulate a God to explain existence is a simpler and more efficient explanation of the universe than A God was/is required for it to exist. The concept of a God *complicates* things, rather than simplifying them. As an example, if there is a God, and He/She/It has a PLAN for all of this, how is it that all these atheists aren't part of it? Were they created by someone/something else? What exactly is this else? And this is saying nothing about stuff like plagues, floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. If you're an atheist, you get to look at these things and say, That's a real pity, but shit happens. If you're a Believer, you have to say, That's a real pity, including the fact that God made it happen. But it's not our place to question WHY He/She/It made it happen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
[FairfieldLife] Maitreya steps forward - His open mission has begun
The way prepared by His Herald the ‘star’, Maitreya, the World Teacher, has given His first interview on American television. Benjamin Creme announced at his public lecture in London, 14 January 2010, that Maitreya's interview had taken place. See video announcement by Benjamin Crème here: http://www.share-international.org/av/v_maitreya_emergence.htm http://www.share-international.org/av/v_maitreya_emergence.htm (duration 06:34)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
It's good to be the king. It's Good to be the king It's Good to be the king View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo From: dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:15 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield! Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
[FairfieldLife] The Son of Man
In this video, recorded in December 2008, Benjamin Creme reads an article by his Master, titled 'The Son of Man'. The article, published in the June 1984 edition of Share International magazine, begins: Many people await the return of the Christ with trepidation and fear. They sense that His appearance will promote great changes in all departments of life. His values, they rightly assume, will necessarily alter their ways of thinking and living and they blanch at such a prospect. Besides, so mystical has been the view of the Christ presented down the centuries by the churches, that many fear His judgement and omnipotent power; they await Him as God come to punish the wicked and reward the faithful. It is sadly to be regretted that such a distorted vision of the Christ should so have permeated human consciousness. No such being exists. In order to understand the true nature of the Christ it is necessary to see Him as one among equal Sons of God, each endowed with full divine potential, differing only in the degree of manifestation of that divinity http://www.share-international.org/av/v_maitreya_emergence.htm http://www.share-international.org/av/v_maitreya_emergence.htm
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
What did he say about the relationship of the US movement to Girish? On Fri, 4/18/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 12:15 PM Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation.Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating CommunityIn the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ?
more like the CIA was never interested in TM to begin with and Marshy was a superstitious paranoid con artist. If he was so convinced the CIA was dogging his tracks, why didn't he use some of his enlightened powers to run 'em off, or call on Shiva to destroy them? I mean, if Shiva could make his own frozen pecker appear outside Marshy's bedroom when Marshy was in his dotage, surely he could have done the Old Goat that little favor. On Fri, 4/18/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 12:18 PM It's a tricky question. First of all the CIA lost interest in the TMO already 29 years ago since they found it is a harmless org. The people at Langley are not stupid and only started their inquiries because that peanut-farmer asked them to. Plenty of people were on their payrolls at the time including some Initiators and members of Purusha. One fellow I know was caught red-handed when posting a report in a mailbox during a project in Asia. Maharishi didn't become the least upset and simply asked the fellow if he would give up his association with the CIA and continue to work for us, he agreed and is still fulltime.Then there is the issue with that Lama fellow. Unfortunately he is next to broke and has little funds to spare as most Governments sees him as a clown.My thinking these days is that the naysayers and dwellers in the comfy old outdated systems about to crumble, so furiously opposing change are not paid for their role. At least not that I am aware of. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Again just for the edification of the lurker press, Perfect TMer Nabby should remind them that -- as he has said here many times -- many of the TM critics here are being paid by the CIA. It is still an open question which Overlord pays better -- the Dalai Lama or the CIA. And there is the question as to whether some of them are double-dipping and being paid by both Overlords. Perhaps Nabby can answer these nagging questions for us. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:34 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on winners ? By asking for donations to finance free Initiations David Lynch takes from the rich and gives to the poor, a modern day Robin Hood. No wonders the devotees of stale, rigid and outdated religions representing the old ways of doing things hate him. Unfortunately the representatives of their outgoing energies are plenty here on FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Barry, I did believe in God. Then did not, although always held out hope that there was God. Then doubted the TM concept of Being, or my take on it. The slightly more abstract concept works better for me. But when I give up even Being or some sort of sense of a fundamental energy that does structure life in the universe, then I feel some real sadness. Been struggling with this for years now - wanting to believe in something out there, something good and loving, while reading all the brain stuff about how we can nudge our brains to shift a bit and then see and feel things that seem spiritual/religious/universal/blissful/loving/farout. I think much of the struggle, for me, is giving up the idea that there is a soul and it evolves from life to life. I really really want that to be true! For me, a bit of magical thinking makes me happier. Recently, I have let it all go and given up on the intellectual struggle and just settled into knowing that there are ideas and beliefs that make me feel good, a deep inside my gut feeling of ok. So that is where I am now - believing more than I did the last 20 years, but not reverting back entirely to the TM and preTM days. I will continue to read all the brain stuff and enjoy it, but somehow I don't feel there is as much of a contradiction between that and having some beliefs that assume the universe is not only orderly but a bit caring, somehow. How Somehow? I don't know. The key is accepting not knowing - which leaves lots of wiggle room and flexibility. So, I do think there are benefits to believing - if not in God, then in something that gives extra meaning to our lives. Things are hard here, people suffer, they get sick, lose loved ones, are hungry and cold. You know. If belief in God or anything makes life seem softer, or gives people hope, then it can be a good thing. and if there really is nothing at all there and we rejoin the swirling soup of particles that make up the the universe, then having some wishful thinking beliefs to soften the journey thru human life does have benefits. Community, rituals, comfort, feeling protected, giving reasons for the harshness which makes it easier to bear. We all know when religion is not a good thing - if that belief narrows down the heart. But if the beliefs open wide the person's behavior and thoughts, I think it is a great thing. Something I would never want to take away from them. I think you can be Christian or Jewish or whatever, believe it all, and yet still be open and accepting. This is good for some people. Again, I think the key is being able to accept not knowing for sure, even with religion. If the believer has some humility about their knowledge and beliefs, and can admit to not knowing for sure about the details, then it can work well. I have friends who don't believe at all, in anything. They are wonderful people, ethical, generous, liberal. Yo But believing in something or being religious does not have to mean you are a fundamentalist wackadoodle, either. Most people I know who are religious are not offended by atheism. Uncomfortable, maybe. But not defensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. Good questions, speaking entirely for myself - as atheists (as far as I know) aren't a gang with a set of instructions about what threshold of beliefs you need to reach before being a member - it's more about just not having a belief that there has ever been any sort of creator and relying instead on both uncertainty where necessary and confidence where appropriate. Everything is subject to review as more information comes to light, including whether or not there is any sort of god. But nobody actually knows whether there is one and given the apparent lack of necessity and amount of better explanations for god's traditional roles I know where I'd place my money. I like the idea of life after death though, it'd be cool to wake up in heaven or on the next stage of the computer game we all might be playing. I also like the idea of reincarnation be nice to know I may in some way get another go at this.But looking at what we know about animals and brains and evolution I'd have to say it isn't very likely. In fact, if I was a gambling man, I'd say the odds weren't worth much of a stake. But there might be something we don't know of course. It's a case of finding out later with that one but don't hold your breath. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. I would say that the progress that has been made in studying consciousness in a short time has been rather impressive. Given the power of the scientific method to get to the bottom of things I would expect to get a working model of consciousness and self awareness very soon. We know where thoughts occur, what part of the brain needs to be active in order for consciousness to function (and how to knock it out), if it's possible to do it then we will. Unquestionably. The brain is after all another physical structure. .Unless there is something really unusual going on. You have to look at it from an evolutionists perspective, there haven't always been brains and you can trace their growth from early on in history, it shouldn't be too hard to build a graph showing which animal has which level of awareness. We seem to be the only one with the ability to sit back and think about it. That's the only difference I can see with us: we have a metaphorical inner life and can make up abstract ideas like afterlife's. How we got that adaptation is a mystery but maybe not such a big one. And of course, having an explanation of the consciousness hard problem doesn't mean we are going to be able to easily fit it to our own experience. And I expect there will be a lot of people who refuse to even try. So it isn't really lame, just a statement that there are still mysteries. And mysteries that I refuse to fill with woo woo. So, that would be my take on the issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
This is a good one: Appeal to Ridicule Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Opsie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
From: waybacki...@yahoo.com waybacki...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? Barry, I did believe in God. Then did not, although always held out hope that there was God. Then doubted the TM concept of Being, or my take on it. The slightly more abstract concept works better for me. But when I give up even Being or some sort of sense of a fundamental energy that does structure life in the universe, then I feel some real sadness. For the record, I have no problem with some sort of fundamental energy that underlies the universe. What I take issue with is whether this energy structures the universe in the sense of either creating it or maintaining it, hands-on. I take issue with its supposed sentience or ability to have a Plan, much less manifest one. Been struggling with this for years now - wanting to believe in something out there, something good and loving, while reading all the brain stuff about how we can nudge our brains to shift a bit and then see and feel things that seem spiritual/religious/universal/blissful/loving/farout. I think much of the struggle, for me, is giving up the idea that there is a soul and it evolves from life to life. I really really want that to be true! Me, I never think about souls. They're not necessary in my view of the universe. For me, it's not as if something travels from life to life, but that life never stops. That could be incorrect, of course, and if so I'll discover it at the same moment you do, when I flatline. For me, a bit of magical thinking makes me happier. Recently, I have let it all go and given up on the intellectual struggle and just settled into knowing that there are ideas and beliefs that make me feel good, a deep inside my gut feeling of ok. So that is where I am now - believing more than I did the last 20 years, but not reverting back entirely to the TM and preTM days. Sounds great to me. I will continue to read all the brain stuff and enjoy it, but somehow I don't feel there is as much of a contradiction between that and having some beliefs that assume the universe is not only orderly but a bit caring, somehow. How Somehow? I don't know. The key is accepting not knowing - which leaves lots of wiggle room and flexibility. So, I do think there are benefits to believing - if not in God, then in something that gives extra meaning to our lives. Things are hard here, people suffer, they get sick, lose loved ones, are hungry and cold. You know. If belief in God or anything makes life seem softer, or gives people hope, then it can be a good thing. and if there really is nothing at all there and we rejoin the swirling soup of particles that make up the the universe, then having some wishful thinking beliefs to soften the journey thru human life does have benefits. Community, rituals, comfort, feeling protected, giving reasons for the harshness which makes it easier to bear. We all know when religion is not a good thing - if that belief narrows down the heart. But if the beliefs open wide the person's behavior and thoughts, I think it is a great thing. Something I would never want to take away from them. I have no problem with any of this. As I've said, people are free to believe whatever they bloody well choose to believe that helps them get through the day. As I've also said, however, they cross a line when they attempt to get me to believe the things they believe or assume them as a necessary preface to further conversation. I think you can be Christian or Jewish or whatever, believe it all, and yet still be open and accepting. This is good for some people. Again, I think the key is being able to accept not knowing for sure, even with religion. If the believer has some humility about their knowledge and beliefs, and can admit to not knowing for sure about the details, then it can work well. I have friends who don't believe at all, in anything. They are wonderful people, ethical, generous, liberal. Yo But believing in something or being religious does not have to mean you are a fundamentalist wackadoodle, either. Most people I know who are religious are not offended by atheism. Uncomfortable, maybe. But not defensive. Exactly why I love Bruce Cockburn. He believes in God, but in a cool way: SuperDjdaba - Bruce Cockburn - Understanding Nothing.wmv SuperDjdaba - Bruce Cockburn - Understanding... View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo High above valley, Above deep shade coloured with the calls of cuckoos, The ring of coppersmith's hammer high in the hiss of the wind Wind filled with spirits and bright with the jangle of horse bells After a crisp night crammed with stars It's morning Over the scratched-up soil, scorched-earth wasted, Long shadows lead women bearing water I watch the sway of skirts, Think of moist spice forests -
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
But it IS absurd, and *exactly* like believing in either Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you disagree, produce either of these supposed beings. Or the other one, for that matter. :-) From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder This is a good one: Appeal to Ridicule Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Opsie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Starting the day with an Oooopsie: Barry doesn't even know what McCarthyism was: Just to point it out to those who still don't get it, highlighted below in red is another classic example of Judy's intellectual McCarthyism ploy. I have in my hand a list of detailed refutations of each of Curtis' points, but I won't show it to you unless someone asks me to. Apparently Barry doesn't realize that the problem with McCarthy saying, I have here in my hand... was that he didn't have there in his hand what he claimed to have. He couldn't have shown it to anyone, no matter who asked, because it was nonexistent. (Just out of curiosity, to whom is the pseudoquote supposed to be addressed? Who is you? Barry got tangled up in his rhetoric again, it looks like.) And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as impressed by Uncle Fester as Judy was. It's the Robin story all over again. :-) Barry never even looked at Feser, first of all. Second of all, even if he had, he wouldn't have understood enough of it to be impressed or otherwise. It's just way, way over his head. So was Robin, for that matter. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Barry is such a buffoon. This is much funnier than he can possibly imagine. Remember, I was in constant private contact with Robin; I know why he left. (Curtis does too, but he'll never admit it.) Now ask Curtis why he left shortly thereafter, Barry. No, never mind, he'll lie. It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested Robin so badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't it? She'll never get over that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why morality is important in reaching enlightenment.
Where's the rest, he didn't even bother to address NiYama? More conflicting vague information from MMY in my opinion, like his Bhagavad Gitaunfinished! I guess you will believe what you want to believe, so be it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : An excerpt of Maharishi's talks on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYKsNCyj_sE William Sands has a new book on Yoga out, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and His Gift to the World and Maharishi’s Yoga: The Royal Path to Enlightenment. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/03/a-different-take-on-ashtanga-yoga-william-f-sands/ http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/03/a-different-take-on-ashtanga-yoga-william-f-sands/ Sands' website is: http://www.wfsands.com http://www.wfsands.com L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : wgm4u, didn't Maharishi once explain that by doing TM one was actually practicing all 8 limbs of yoga? I'm pretty sure he did but I don't remember the details. On Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:35 PM, wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: As long as the prana (or chi) is locked in the lower chakras (spiritual centers of awakening) of lust, anger and greed, it will not release the soul to higher realms. These samskaras (deep impressions) eventually must be 'burnt' out completely to maintain that state of Self-Realization or God Realization. Though the impressions are in the sub-conscious mind their correlate is reflected in the vital/pranic body (sometimes called the health body that permeates the physical body). This is why Ayurved is pursued in TM and other organizations, by clearing the vayus (or airs, actually the pranic channels in the subtle body) of 'stress' and impurities (ie. attachments) one is finally set free to *ascend* to Samadhi. Remember MMY said in the beginning, ones tip toes through the sleeping elephants', these sleeping elephants are the doshas (in yoga AND in Ayurved) which must be removed/replaced by the virtues, hence the importance of practicing ALL of Patanjali's 8 limbs of Yoga, not just a few..
[FairfieldLife] The Oath of the Meditating Community of Fairfield, Iowa
Resolve: That as Community Meditators, We will never bring disgrace on this our City, by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and we will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those about us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive increasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less, but greater, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us. -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Nice post. I also believe there is no point in believing in a God you can't see, hear or otherwise communicate with. Having had such communication I not only believe in God but know it to be a living reality. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, waybackin71@... wrote : Barry, I did believe in God. Then did not, although always held out hope that there was God. Then doubted the TM concept of Being, or my take on it. The slightly more abstract concept works better for me. But when I give up even Being or some sort of sense of a fundamental energy that does structure life in the universe, then I feel some real sadness. Been struggling with this for years now - wanting to believe in something out there, something good and loving, while reading all the brain stuff about how we can nudge our brains to shift a bit and then see and feel things that seem spiritual/religious/universal/blissful/loving/farout. I think much of the struggle, for me, is giving up the idea that there is a soul and it evolves from life to life. I really really want that to be true! For me, a bit of magical thinking makes me happier. Recently, I have let it all go and given up on the intellectual struggle and just settled into knowing that there are ideas and beliefs that make me feel good, a deep inside my gut feeling of ok. So that is where I am now - believing more than I did the last 20 years, but not reverting back entirely to the TM and preTM days. I will continue to read all the brain stuff and enjoy it, but somehow I don't feel there is as much of a contradiction between that and having some beliefs that assume the universe is not only orderly but a bit caring, somehow. How Somehow? I don't know. The key is accepting not knowing - which leaves lots of wiggle room and flexibility. So, I do think there are benefits to believing - if not in God, then in something that gives extra meaning to our lives. Things are hard here, people suffer, they get sick, lose loved ones, are hungry and cold. You know. If belief in God or anything makes life seem softer, or gives people hope, then it can be a good thing. and if there really is nothing at all there and we rejoin the swirling soup of particles that make up the the universe, then having some wishful thinking beliefs to soften the journey thru human life does have benefits. Community, rituals, comfort, feeling protected, giving reasons for the harshness which makes it easier to bear. We all know when religion is not a good thing - if that belief narrows down the heart. But if the beliefs open wide the person's behavior and thoughts, I think it is a great thing. Something I would never want to take away from them. I think you can be Christian or Jewish or whatever, believe it all, and yet still be open and accepting. This is good for some people. Again, I think the key is being able to accept not knowing for sure, even with religion. If the believer has some humility about their knowledge and beliefs, and can admit to not knowing for sure about the details, then it can work well. I have friends who don't believe at all, in anything. They are wonderful people, ethical, generous, liberal. Yo But believing in something or being religious does not have to mean you are a fundamentalist wackadoodle, either. Most people I know who are religious are not offended by atheism. Uncomfortable, maybe. But not defensive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Hey Steve, how you been brother? Comments below --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. C: This surprised me. I wonder who you mean here. I consider myself and atheist and have talked about a wide rage of topics in my time here. Do you consider talking about higher states a discussion on solid ground? My guess is that the line of reasoning some atheists follow in discussing things isn't your groove so it seems more abstract than a discussion about god or enlightenment which you are more familiar with so it seems more solid to you. Just a guess. But this is a pretty philosophically oriented forum by design with a propensity for personal attack so it doesn't surprise me that most people keep things less personally vulnerable atheist or spiritual. S: For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? C: Genetics has refuted this pretty thoroughly, as has neuroscience. It was Locke who proposed this idea but it hasn't really held up. S: Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. C: I didn't get any official memo on this so I'll have to give you my best personal guess. For me I've noticed that it doesn't take much brain imbalance for me to go to black so I'm guessing that when the brain stops functioning it isn't gunna be positive for my conscious experience. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary including near death experiences which I prefer to call not dead' experiences. S: You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. C: All of us believe things based on reasons that we value. Using the term evidence makes it sound more clinical but we all have an epistemological system with criteria whether conscious or not. No one believes everything we pick and choose according to our criteria. S:I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. C: Plenty for the tabla rass idea, for life after death, not so much for me. S:And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. C: I see plenty of difference. When a person says that there is a lot we don't know about genetics it is in the context of a specific plan to find out using a method. The fringes of what we know and don't know are mapped out carefully and choices are made for where is the best area to put resources to find out. They are only the same as saying God works in mysterious ways out of the context those phrases are used. I don't think religious people use that as a catchphrase for all the things we don't know do they? I think they use it as a physiological balm when life circumstances serve up something inconsistent with a loving god watching over us. It is his get out of jail card for the random horrible shit that can happen to otherwise good people. The big difference is that the word god can usually be substituted with the word magic with no change in the meaning. That is not the case with the other fields of growing human knowledge you mentioned. S:So, that would be my take on the issue. C: It all seemed a bit abstract to me, like you might be uncomfortable talking about things that are on more solid ground...I wonder if all spiritually oriented people are like that? Just F'n with ya, nice to reconnect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
What annoys theists is the arrogant ignorance of the vocal few atheists (who have, of course, a much grander goal than watching theists react--they want to stamp out theism for good). I don't believe in the kind of God Barry imagines all theists agree on, so I can't answer his question about the benefits of such belief. I don't believe in the God of classical theism either; I just can't rule it out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Shikan-taza is NOT Silent Illumination (Mo-Chao)
On 4/18/2014 2:54 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: So much for lighten-mint So much for your insight - the just sitting in shikentaza IS enlightenment, that's the whole point. Soto Zen Buddhism, shikentaza stresses the principle that every time you apply strenuous effort, you're that much further from the goal. You've got to stop your striving - forget all about the metaphysics and the concepts - all that will get you is a headache. You're only going to get as much enlightenment, whatever that is, as you are going to get. You're still mistaking the pointing finger for the moon. When you stop all your striving and your incessant word games and thinking, you can see the moon in a dewdrop. My suggestion is for you give up on understanding the Zen Buddhism - you seem hopelessly lost in speculation. In Dogen's zen practice, the primary realization is the *oneness* of practice-enlightenment. The practice of zazen and the experience of enlightenment are one and the same - there is no difference - no duality. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Oath of the Meditating Community of Fairfield, Iowa
Blowing it out the ass. On Friday, April 18, 2014 6:47 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Resolve: That as Community Meditators, We will never bring disgrace on this our City, by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and we will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those about us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive increasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less, but greater, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us. -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
Of course, back in the day, the complaint was that the TMO overlooked People With Problems and focused on the secure and well-to-do. That fact appears to have been wiped from Barry's memory. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why morality is important in reaching enlightenment.
On 4/17/2014 11:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: I am sure all who despise me on FFL will buy a copy since Willie the Sandman was the one to booted me out of MIU For the record, you didn't attend classes at MIU - apparently you were on staff in the kitchen, so you didn't get booted from MIU - you got booted from your job as a waiter in the cafeteria. Who cares if was Willie the Sandman? The important thing is they got you out of there before you could do some real damage. Have a nice day. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
The people who learn TM via the David Lynch Foundation don't pay anything. People who receive food from the Red Cross don't pay for that food, but the people who donate money to the Red Cross did. You're picking a nit that only exists in your own mind. TM teachers get compensated for their time teaching TM, whether they teach through a TM center, or through the DLF. The national TM organization gets a cut of the money as well, though it isn't that much in the case of students. Currently, TM instruction costs $360 for school age kids, including full-time undergrad and grad students in college. A single TM teacher is responsible for teaching 300 students at a Quiet Time school, at least as far as compensation goes, though details of how local TM centers and/or local TM teachers are involved in the process are unclear to me (probably because they wing it depending on who is available when). If you look at the Maharishi Foundation, Inc Form 990 for 2012, when teaching students, TM teachers got 2/3 of the fee while the TM organization got 1/3. This works out to nearly $300/student. The 990 form for 2013 isn't available online yet, but they TMO is supposed to be so flush with cash this past year that they were able to drop the fees substantially and still pay all their bills. With the new fee schedule for 2014, I'm guessing that TM teachers will still get about $300/student while the TM organization will only get $60. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Incorrect Lawson - David Lynch doesn't offer shit for free. Why do you think he is ALWAYS begging for donations to FUND the programs? The TMO ALWAYS gets paid, no matter what. EVERYTHING they do is a scam to make money so they can live big. On Fri, 4/18/14, LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... LEnglish5@... mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 11:10 AM The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
You must not be from the Deep South - in SC, if you mention atheism, the fundies start sharpin' their pitchforks. On Fri, 4/18/14, waybacki...@yahoo.com waybacki...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 12:58 PM Barry,I did believe in God. Then did not, although always held out hope that there was God. Then doubted the TM concept of Being, or my take on it. The slightly more abstract concept works better for me. But when I give up even Being or some sort of sense of a fundamental energy that does structure life in the universe, then I feel some real sadness. Been struggling with this for years now - wanting to believe in something out there, something good and loving, while reading all the brain stuff about how we can nudge our brains to shift a bit and then see and feel things that seem spiritual/religious/universal/blissful/loving/farout. I think much of the struggle, for me, is giving up the idea that there is a soul and it evolves from life to life. I really really want that to be true! For me, a bit of magical thinking makes me happier. Recently, I have let it all go and given up on the intellectual struggle and just settled into knowing that there are ideas and beliefs that make me feel good, a deep inside my gut feeling of ok. So that is where I am now - believing more than I did the last 20 years, but not reverting back entirely to the TM and preTM days. I will continue to read all the brain stuff and enjoy it, but somehow I don't feel there is as much of a contradiction between that and having some beliefs that assume the universe is not only orderly but a bit caring, somehow. How Somehow? I don't know. The key is accepting not knowing - which leaves lots of wiggle room and flexibility. So, I do think there are benefits to believing - if not in God, then in something that gives extra meaning to our lives. Things are hard here, people suffer, they get sick, lose loved ones, are hungry and cold. You know. If belief in God or anything makes life seem softer, or gives people hope, then it can be a good thing. and if there really is nothing at all there and we rejoin the swirling soup of particles that make up the the universe, then having some wishful thinking beliefs to soften the journey thru human life does have benefits. Community, rituals, comfort, feeling protected, giving reasons for the harshness which makes it easier to bear. We all know when religion is not a good thing - if that belief narrows down the heart. But if the beliefs open wide the person's behavior and thoughts, I think it is a great thing. Something I would never want to take away from them. I think you can be Christian or Jewish or whatever, believe it all, and yet still be open and accepting. This is good for some people. Again, I think the key is being able to accept not knowing for sure, even with religion. If the believer has some humility about their knowledge and beliefs, and can admit to not knowing for sure about the details, then it can work well. I have friends who don't believe at all, in anything. They are wonderful people, ethical, generous, liberal. Yo But believing in something or being religious does not have to mean you are a fundamentalist wackadoodle, either. Most people I know who are religious are not offended by atheism. Uncomfortable, maybe. But not defensive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Oath of the Meditating Community of Fairfield, Iowa
well Bevan and the leaders of MIU/MUM killed that first one long ago On Fri, 4/18/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Oath of the Meditating Community of Fairfield, Iowa To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 1:47 PM Resolve: That as Community Meditators,We will never bring disgrace on this our City, by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and we will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those about us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive increasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less, but greater, and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us. -Buck in the Dome
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. I don't agree with your premise, Steve, but I shall reply because the reggae soundtrack is still playing and I feel like it. NOTHING could fit better into the description can't really be resolved one way or another than the existence of God. What I've railed against is trying to derail that discussion into nitpicking about what exactly one considers God to be. Ok, I feel duly honored that you have replied. Is that sufficient? Certainly no one wants to get caught up in nitpicking. That's why I choose not to participate in these discussions generally. You seemed to be asking genuinely, that' why I've replied. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. I cannot presume to speak for all atheists, and do not. Me, I see no conflict whatsoever between believing in reincarnation and karma and being an atheist. Apples and oranges. No God is required to facilitate recycling. And I am not saying that it does necessitate a belief in God, but it does raise a number of interesting questions that I've observed give atheists some discomfort. I don't have time to go into every bit of it, but if there is anything after death, or before birth, that implies karma, and some means for resolving the karma one way or the other. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. You could try asking. For example, I believe in many things, most of them positive. I believe in living one's life as if it matters, even though I firmly believe that on a fundamental level it doesn't. I have asked, but there has been no reply or scant reply. There is some reason that you are living life as though it matters. Maybe that is a belief you should examine. Personally, I don't care if you, but since you brought it up. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. Name two. Re my earlier post about Rhetorical Fallacies, this is called a straw man, Steve. Clearly, not everyone who is an atheist assumes that life as we know it ends at physical death, or that birth implies a tabula rasa. Barry, if you choose to to discount the many accounts we have all heard about recall from children to adults, many of which have no explanation, be my guest. I feel no need to try to prove them. Discount any or all if you wish. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Cite examples of such replies here on Fairfield Life. We'll wait. I heard that exact phrase from Curtis when the topic came up several years ago. It was made about genetics, and the tabla rasa issue. Hope that was soon enough. I think once you go there with an atheist, it introduces issues they are not particularly comfortable with. Listen, I gotta go, Issue with our taxes. Thanks. But I wish to reply more. Often just a lame default, I think. So, that would be my take on the issue. And a little of mine. I'm an atheist for purely pragmatic, Occam's Razor reasons. No need to postulate a God to explain existence is a simpler and more efficient explanation of the universe than A God was/is required for it to exist. The concept of a God *complicates* things, rather than simplifying them. As an example, if there is a God, and He/She/It has a PLAN for all of this, how is it that all these atheists aren't part of it? Were they created by someone/something else? What exactly is this else? And this is saying nothing about stuff like plagues, floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. If you're an atheist, you get to look at these things and say, That's a real pity, but shit happens. If you're a Believer, you have to say, That's a real pity, including the fact that God made it happen. But it's not our place to question WHY He/She/It made it happen. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
On 4/18/2014 12:49 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Curtis makes some good points about Fester being just an attack dog for those challenged by atheism, but my question is why is he so damned funny-looking? Speaking of funny looking - you're looking pretty funny after mistaking a levitation event for the real thing. If you can't tell the difference between reality and a stage show, how would you understand Feser, or even get his name right? If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they ontradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the true believer closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, the naive realist is still more baffled. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
I didn't say the people pay anything, I said the Lynch hucksters are always begging for donations - that money goes somewhere On Fri, 4/18/14, lengli...@cox.net lengli...@cox.net wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 2:03 PM The people who learn TM via the David Lynch Foundation don't pay anything. People who receive food from the Red Cross don't pay for that food, but the people who donate money to the Red Cross did. You're picking a nit that only exists in your own mind. TM teachers get compensated for their time teaching TM, whether they teach through a TM center, or through the DLF. The national TM organization gets a cut of the money as well, though it isn't that much in the case of students. Currently, TM instruction costs $360 for school age kids, including full-time undergrad and grad students in college. A single TM teacher is responsible for teaching 300 students at a Quiet Time school, at least as far as compensation goes, though details of how local TM centers and/or local TM teachers are involved in the process are unclear to me (probably because they wing it depending on who is available when). If you look at the Maharishi Foundation, Inc Form 990 for 2012, when teaching students, TM teachers got 2/3 of the fee while the TM organization got 1/3. This works out to nearly $300/student. The 990 form for 2013 isn't available online yet, but they TMO is supposed to be so flush with cash this past year that they were able to drop the fees substantially and still pay all their bills. With the new fee schedule for 2014, I'm guessing that TM teachers will still get about $300/student while the TM organization will only get $60. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Incorrect Lawson - David Lynch doesn't offer shit for free. Why do you think he is ALWAYS begging for donations to FUND the programs? The TMO ALWAYS gets paid, no matter what. EVERYTHING they do is a scam to make money so they can live big. On Fri, 4/18/14, LEnglish5@... LEnglish5@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 11:10 AM The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Faith and believe in God are powerful tools that enable you to do that which you could not do by yourself! The belief in a higher power enables one to go beyond your own limitations and do things you thought impossible. Conversely, if you have no belief in your higher power you cut yourself off from that inner resource, even if you believe in YOURSELF you will be more successful than if you don't, which should be obvious, hence the importance in belief! It opens the door to YOUR inner power! But you must have faith in it and practice it! Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matt 17:20 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. Good questions, speaking entirely for myself - as atheists (as far as I know) aren't a gang with a set of instructions about what threshold of beliefs you need to reach before being a member - it's more about just not having a belief that there has ever been any sort of creator and relying instead on both uncertainty where necessary and confidence where appropriate. Everything is subject to review as more information comes to light, including whether or not there is any sort of god. But nobody actually knows whether there is one and given the apparent lack of necessity and amount of better explanations for god's traditional roles I know where I'd place my money. I like the idea of life after death though, it'd be cool to wake up in heaven or on the next stage of the computer game we all might be playing. I also like the idea of reincarnation be nice to know I may in some way get another go at this.But looking at what we know about animals and brains and evolution I'd have to say it isn't very likely. In fact, if I was a gambling man, I'd say the odds weren't worth much of a stake. But there might be something we don't know of course. It's a case of finding out later with that one but don't hold your breath. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. I would say that the progress that has been made in studying consciousness in a short time has been rather impressive. Given the power of the scientific method to get to the bottom of things I would expect to get a working model of consciousness and self awareness very soon. We know where thoughts occur, what part of the brain needs to be active in order for consciousness to function (and how to knock it out), if it's possible to do it then we will. Unquestionably. The brain is after all another physical structure. .Unless there is something really unusual going on. You have to look at it from an evolutionists perspective, there haven't always been brains and you can trace their growth from early on in history, it shouldn't be too hard to build a graph showing which animal has which level of awareness. We seem to be the only one with the ability to sit back and think about it. That's the only difference I can see with us: we have a metaphorical inner life and can make up abstract ideas like afterlife's. How we got that adaptation is a mystery but maybe not such a big one. And of course, having an explanation of the consciousness hard problem doesn't mean we are going to be able to easily fit it to our own experience. And I expect there will be a lot of people who refuse to even try. So it isn't really lame, just a statement that there are still mysteries. And mysteries that I refuse to fill with woo woo. So, that would be my take on the issue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
On 4/18/2014 12:57 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as impressed by Uncle Fester as Judy was. Curtis didn't seem to be very impressed with your proof for the non-existence of God - that you witnessed Rama in a levitation event. Maybe it's time for you to 'fess up, or keep your big pie hole shut about Judy. The naive realist is unaware that he has no criterion of the reality or unreality of objects experienced. He has faith in the reality of movie action while it lasts, otherwise he could not really enjoy it. He has faith in his own action, otherwise how could he really enjoy life. But how reliable is such faith? Dozens of times -- probably more like hundreds, actually -- over a 14-year period starting in 1981.- TurquoiseB Author: TurquoiseB Subject: Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? Forum: Yahoo FairfieldLife - Message 16 Date: July 23, 2005 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
One of the very few unequivocally accurate statements Barry has made in this discussion: NOTHING could fit better into the description can't really be resolved one way or another than the existence of God.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
On 4/18/2014 1:09 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested Robin so badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't it? She'll never get over that. Maybe you're still pissed off for Shemp McGurk calling you on your big lie about the Rama levitation events. It's not complicated. Comparison of present paradoxes with past experiences simply involves greater possibilities of error and greater paradoxes. For past experiences, to be compared, must be remembered. But memory often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing you again? Yet, your past experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The true believer, Barry, thinks he sees directly back into an existing past which in reality has ceased to exist or never even existed! Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
On 4/18/2014 1:41 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it seriously. Apparently nobody took Barry's claims of having seen Rama levitate seriously, except for you, Sally. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
On 4/18/2014 1:53 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Just imagine how Judy and Robin would get their buttons pushed if we intentionally misspelled another supposed authority they love to throw around, So, it's all about Judy. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
But it's perfectly OK for atheists to try to get theists to believe what the atheists do? As I've said, people are free to believe whatever they bloody well choose to believe that helps them get through the day. As I've also said, however, they cross a line when they attempt to get me to believe the things they believe or assume them as a necessary preface to further conversation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder
Er, Barry, this was one of the fallacies listed on your chart. Oopsie again. But it IS absurd, and *exactly* like believing in either Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you disagree, produce either of these supposed beings. Or the other one, for that matter. :-) From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 3:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reposted just because it seems folks need a reminder This is a good one: Appeal to Ridicule Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Opsie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Something to bear in mind while reading Fairfield Life. Or anything else, for that matter. The pasted-in graphic below may not expand properly, so if it doesn't, use the link: http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Perhaps Barry is waiting for someone to prove it FOR him!? Unfortunately Barry will be waiting a long time if that's the case, as God can only be proved to oneself since it is a subjective experience. I can't prove it for him, he can only prove it for himself. God is an *experience* that transcends the five senses, and certainly can't be discerned using a microscope or a telescope. Until it's real for you it's merely a theory, maybe the best, but still, just a theory. AS MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : One of the very few unequivocally accurate statements Barry has made in this discussion: NOTHING could fit better into the description can't really be resolved one way or another than the existence of God.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
No, he was not asked about that so did not get to that. Uptown that readily gets asked by meditators but it was not asked last night for him to comment on. Nobody spoke about that. That as a larger community question Is still unresolved, as in not spoken to. -Buck mjackson74 asks: What did he say about the relationship of the US movement to Girish? Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield! Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town in asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation.Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m. .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
What our resident sage has just posted is a re-statement of the Mahayana Buddhism. However, he failed to mention that the notion of maya, a Shankara invention, is NOT what underpins a TM teachers understanding about meditation and reality. In fact, most of the TM teachers that I know never mention the unreality of the world as illusion. Go figure. Excerpt Mandukya Karika IV by Gaudapada: Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness. (IV 25-27) Sharma, p. 245-246. described belwo is On 4/18/2014 2:08 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: *TM teachers are instructed within a yogic-advaita framework - one that underpins their understanding about meditation and reality. Without exposure to Shankara's teachings and the traditional Upanishad methodology, it will be hard for any TM'er to entertain this original view.* ** *Shankara says:* *For there is the statement of the shruti : “The Brahman that is direct and immediate” (BU 3.4.1) and there is the statement, tat tvam asi “/you are That/” (CU6.8.7) which teaches [that Brahman] is already accomplished. This sentence “/you are That/” cannot be interpreted to mean you will become That after you are dead (i.e in heaven).* ** *Comans explains: * *Firstly, Shankara is committed to the understanding that the Self is self-luminous, for it is by nature simple, sheer Awareness (BUbh 4.3.23). Secondly, in accord with this view of the self-luminosity of the Self as Awareness, Shankara has characterized the Self as “Experience Itself” (anubhavâtman). We should therefore expect that the experience about which Shankara speaks is the “intuition”, “insight”, or even “recognition” of oneself as sheer Awareness. It cannot be a new experience of producing something that did not previously exist. Nor can it be an experience involving the objectification of Awareness. It is rather the “experience” of oneself /AS/ Awareness, without limitations. For that is what one is, and so finds oneself to be, when there is the apprehension of one’s own fundamental Awareness-nature, together with the apprehension of the “seeming”, or the apparent nature (mithyâtva) of all limiting adjuncts (upâdhis) - those that pertain to the individual body-mind (tvam), as well as to the Lordship of Brahman (tat). * ** *TM teachers are not educated or trained to receive, apprehend or articulate such a view about the immediacy of direct realization. * --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
On 4/18/2014 3:00 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Don't worry - you needn't be. As a TM teacher you should be worried. Shankara is just a re-statement of Mahayana Buddhism with the added element of illusion or maya thrown in to confuse people like you. Go figure. Excerpt from Mahayana Sutra Lankara by Asanga Maitreyanatha: Pure consciousness is the only Reality. By its nature, it is Self-luminous. (XIII, 13). Thus shaking off duality, he directly perceives the Absolute which is the unity underlying phenomena (dharmadatu). (VI, 7) Sharma, p. 112-113 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Time to buy NOK?
On 4/18/2014 3:27 AM, cardemais...@yahoo.com wrote: Strong buy! NYSE http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/NOK 7.34 USD... So, I guess you'll be retiring in a year or two. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of being a poor thinker because he didn't understand that the laws of nature would have to be around before the particles they govern. This incorrect and funnily enough it does to Hawking exactly what Ed Fess accuses everyone else of doing to theists. Paying them an injustice by not understanding their position! I'll have to dig up Hawking's quote on why philosophy is dead. BTW Judy, I will torment you no longer. Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred. We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it seriously.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
there must be limitations to the practical function of faith in the real world. There are a lot of folks who have faith that the Marshy Effect is real when in fact it is not. The same group has faith that vastu ved is gonna straighten their lives out when in fact it does not. Some few individuals have faith that crop circles are actually made by ETs when in fact they are not. On Fri, 4/18/14, wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 18, 2014, 2:14 PM Faith and believe in God are powerful tools that enable you to do that which you could not do by yourself! The belief in a higher power enables one to go beyond your own limitations and do things you thought impossible. Conversely, if you have no belief in your higher power you cut yourself off from that inner resource, even if you believe in YOURSELF you will be more successful than if you don't, which should be obvious, hence the importance in belief! It opens the door to YOUR inner power! But you must have faith in it and practice it! Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matt 17:20 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. Good questions, speaking entirely for myself - as atheists (as far as I know) aren't a gang with a set of instructions about what threshold of beliefs you need to reach before being a member - it's more about just not having a belief that there has ever been any sort of creator and relying instead on both uncertainty where necessary and confidence where appropriate. Everything is subject to review as more information comes to light, including whether or not there is any sort of god. But nobody actually knows whether there is one and given the apparent lack of necessity and amount of better explanations for god's traditional roles I know where I'd place my money. I like the idea of life after death though, it'd be cool to wake up in heaven or on the next stage of the computer game we all might be playing. I also like the idea of reincarnation be nice to know I may in some way get another go at this.But looking at what we know about animals and brains and evolution I'd have to say it isn't very likely. In fact, if I was a gambling man, I'd say the odds weren't worth much of a stake. But there might be something we don't know of course. It's a case of finding out later with that one but don't hold your breath. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. I would say that the progress that has been made in studying consciousness in a short time has been rather impressive. Given the power of the scientific method to get to the bottom of things I would expect to get a working model of consciousness and self awareness very soon. We know where thoughts occur, what part of the brain needs to be active in order for consciousness to function (and how to knock it out), if it's possible to do it then we will. Unquestionably. The brain is after all another physical structure. .Unless there is something really unusual going on. You have to look at it from an evolutionists perspective, there haven't always been brains and you can trace their growth from early on in history, it shouldn't be too hard to build a graph showing which animal has which level of awareness. We seem to be the only one with the ability to sit back and think about it. That's the only difference I can see with us: we have a metaphorical inner life and can make up
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Nablusoss, here in the states some FFers hie off in winter to a place in Florida called Vero Beach. Probably not as nice as Nice (-: Anyway, yes the meeting was good, though it went a little too late for my preference. imo Dr. Nader embodies a loving heart and brilliant mind and down to earth practicality. I think Maharishi chose wisely when he chose him. On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:20 AM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Very nice report Buck, thanks for posting. I'll soon have a community meeting myself in Nice where I'm contemplating buying a house. Seems there are quite a few meditators down there in the sun :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:03 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God? there must be limitations to the practical function of faith in the real world. There are a lot of folks who have faith that the Marshy Effect is real when in fact it is not. The same group has faith that vastu ved is gonna straighten their lives out when in fact it does not. Some few individuals have faith that crop circles are actually made by ETs when in fact they are not. You make these assertions with the certainty of a true (dis)believer.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
wayback, it's good to have you back (-: You too Curtis but I have not yet read your main post. 104 emails this morning! Oy! On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:58 AM, waybacki...@yahoo.com waybacki...@yahoo.com wrote: Barry, I did believe in God. Then did not, although always held out hope that there was God. Then doubted the TM concept of Being, or my take on it. The slightly more abstract concept works better for me. But when I give up even Being or some sort of sense of a fundamental energy that does structure life in the universe, then I feel some real sadness. Been struggling with this for years now - wanting to believe in something out there, something good and loving, while reading all the brain stuff about how we can nudge our brains to shift a bit and then see and feel things that seem spiritual/religious/universal/blissful/loving/farout. I think much of the struggle, for me, is giving up the idea that there is a soul and it evolves from life to life. I really really want that to be true! For me, a bit of magical thinking makes me happier. Recently, I have let it all go and given up on the intellectual struggle and just settled into knowing that there are ideas and beliefs that make me feel good, a deep inside my gut feeling of ok. So that is where I am now - believing more than I did the last 20 years, but not reverting back entirely to the TM and preTM days. I will continue to read all the brain stuff and enjoy it, but somehow I don't feel there is as much of a contradiction between that and having some beliefs that assume the universe is not only orderly but a bit caring, somehow. How Somehow? I don't know. The key is accepting not knowing - which leaves lots of wiggle room and flexibility. So, I do think there are benefits to believing - if not in God, then in something that gives extra meaning to our lives. Things are hard here, people suffer, they get sick, lose loved ones, are hungry and cold. You know. If belief in God or anything makes life seem softer, or gives people hope, then it can be a good thing. and if there really is nothing at all there and we rejoin the swirling soup of particles that make up the the universe, then having some wishful thinking beliefs to soften the journey thru human life does have benefits. Community, rituals, comfort, feeling protected, giving reasons for the harshness which makes it easier to bear. We all know when religion is not a good thing - if that belief narrows down the heart. But if the beliefs open wide the person's behavior and thoughts, I think it is a great thing. Something I would never want to take away from them. I think you can be Christian or Jewish or whatever, believe it all, and yet still be open and accepting. This is good for some people. Again, I think the key is being able to accept not knowing for sure, even with religion. If the believer has some humility about their knowledge and beliefs, and can admit to not knowing for sure about the details, then it can work well. I have friends who don't believe at all, in anything. They are wonderful people, ethical, generous, liberal. Yo But believing in something or being religious does not have to mean you are a fundamentalist wackadoodle, either. Most people I know who are religious are not offended by atheism. Uncomfortable, maybe. But not defensive.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Curtis, yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig claiming it is ART :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
Merely thinking about Him/Her and praying to a God you have never seen is a waste of time. If a meditation doesn't land you at His/Her doorstep, if there is no communication with speech, touch and visions in broad daylight you are doing an inferior/too slow, effectless woo-woo meditation based on hopes and aspirations only. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Faith and believe in God are powerful tools that enable you to do that which you could not do by yourself! The belief in a higher power enables one to go beyond your own limitations and do things you thought impossible. Conversely, if you have no belief in your higher power you cut yourself off from that inner resource, even if you believe in YOURSELF you will be more successful than if you don't, which should be obvious, hence the importance in belief! It opens the door to YOUR inner power! But you must have faith in it and practice it! Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matt 17:20 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Probably not what you are looking for, but what I've observed from the atheists, at least on this forum is that they are more comfortable keeping the discussion on highly abstract issues. Issues that can't really be resolved one way or the other, or at least kept on a bit of solid ground. For example, does the belief in atheism necessitate the tabla rasa theory that we are born with a blank slate? Do the atheists believe that when we die, it all goes to black. Good questions, speaking entirely for myself - as atheists (as far as I know) aren't a gang with a set of instructions about what threshold of beliefs you need to reach before being a member - it's more about just not having a belief that there has ever been any sort of creator and relying instead on both uncertainty where necessary and confidence where appropriate. Everything is subject to review as more information comes to light, including whether or not there is any sort of god. But nobody actually knows whether there is one and given the apparent lack of necessity and amount of better explanations for god's traditional roles I know where I'd place my money. I like the idea of life after death though, it'd be cool to wake up in heaven or on the next stage of the computer game we all might be playing. I also like the idea of reincarnation be nice to know I may in some way get another go at this.But looking at what we know about animals and brains and evolution I'd have to say it isn't very likely. In fact, if I was a gambling man, I'd say the odds weren't worth much of a stake. But there might be something we don't know of course. It's a case of finding out later with that one but don't hold your breath. You can always say, we have no evidence.', but I'd like to know if it's what they believe. I ask that because there are many instances that would contradict these two assumptions. And sometimes when pressed, you will hear the atheist reply with, there is so much we don't know about genetics, or there is so much we don't know about how the brain works, which sounds a lot like, God works in mysterious way. Now , the God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me either, but neither does the genetics things, or the brain thing, at least as it is often used here. Often just a lame default, I think,. I would say that the progress that has been made in studying consciousness in a short time has been rather impressive. Given the power of the scientific method to get to the bottom of things I would expect to get a working model of consciousness and self awareness very soon. We know where thoughts occur, what part of the brain needs to be active in order for consciousness to function (and how to knock it out), if it's possible to do it then we will. Unquestionably. The brain is after all another physical structure. .Unless there is something really unusual going on. You have to look at it from an evolutionists perspective, there haven't always been brains and you can trace their growth from early on in history, it shouldn't be too hard to build a graph showing which animal has which level of awareness. We seem to be the only one with the ability to sit back and think about it. That's the only difference I can see with us: we have a metaphorical inner life and can make up abstract ideas like afterlife's. How we got that adaptation is a mystery but maybe not such a big one. And of course, having an explanation of the consciousness hard problem doesn't mean we are going to be able to easily fit it to our own experience. And I expect there will be a lot of people who refuse to even
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why morality is important in reaching enlightenment.
For the record, you didn't attend classes at MIU - apparently you were on staff in the kitchen, so you didn't get booted from MIU - you got booted from your job as a waiter in the cafeteria. Who cares if was Willie the Sandman? The important thing is they got you out of there before you could do some real damage. Have a nice day :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 4/17/2014 11:39 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: I am sure all who despise me on FFL will buy a copy since Willie the Sandman was the one to booted me out of MIU For the record, you didn't attend classes at MIU - apparently you were on staff in the kitchen, so you didn't get booted from MIU - you got booted from your job as a waiter in the cafeteria. Who cares if was Willie the Sandman? The important thing is they got you out of there before you could do some real damage. Have a nice day. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com http://www.avast.com
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi University of Management Wins National Ethics Case Study Award | Virtual-Strategy Magazine
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2014/04/18/maharishi-university-management-w ins-national-ethics-case-study-award
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
Lawson and Judy, good points. turq, to whom was Maharishi *marketing* TM when he went on the Merv Giffin Show? TV watchers?! And in your opinion would those folks be in an *at risk* group? Or a privileged, wealthy group? Or a mental problem group? All of the above?! I remember that a couple weeks before I started TM I slipped into the zone. So much so that my Mom asked me what was making me so peaceful. A few days later I saw a poster of Maharishi announcing an intro lecture. I decided to go, but sort of casually. When I walked into the room, the guy was giving out pamphlets. I said I didn't need one because I knew I was gonna start. Which I did. A week before Maharishi's appearance on the Merv Griffin Show. Not being from California, I knew very little about meditation, etc. I had once taken a yoga class in which we did asanas and stared at a flame. I had read Autobiography of A Yogi which a gorgeous young man left on my table at Yes! Health Food Restaurant in Georgetown. Which is all to say that I was not a seeker. Nor was I having problems. Nor was I wealthy. All in all, I'd say I was simply very fortunate. Because I heard decades ago that when a person gets on a spiritual path, the teacher as if makes an agreement with the universe to get that person enlightened. I feel very fortunate that in my case, the teacher was Maharishi. On Friday, April 18, 2014 6:10 AM, lengli...@cox.net lengli...@cox.net wrote: The David Lynch Foundation offers TM instruction for free to people in at risk groups, but the $2500 price tag was originally set by Maharishi to entice wealthy people and only wealthy people to learn TM. Weren't you complaining about how insanely high that price tag was? Seems to me that no matter how TM is marketed and for what price and for whichever group of people -the homeless, war refugees, students in El Barrio watching their cousins kill their cousins, or world famous actors and actresses, CEOs worth as much as small countries, etc.- you'll find a reason to kvetch. It's just an idea. YMMV. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. I've always found these claims difficult to relate to, because I didn't have anything to cure or get over when I first started TM. I had already left drugs behind me, having discovered them back when LSD was still legal and came in a bottle with Sandoz on the label. I did my time with them, enjoyed them *not* because they were an escape from my problems but because they enhanced an already-enjoyable life. But then I got tired of them, and even more tired of the scene surrounding them, and left them behind. I'm probably one of the only people here who didn't have to wait 15 days before starting TM. :-) I was also neither depressed nor suicidal. In fact, I was a pretty happy frood, and merely one who was looking for ways to become even happier. And for a time, TM presented what I was looking for, something to enhance a good life and help me to appreciate it even more. But then it became as boring and as stagnant as drugs had been, and with an even more stifling social scene, so I moved on again to other forms of meditation that worked better. But there seem to be any number of long-term TMers who don't look back on their TM experience this way. They seem to focus on what it enabled them to get over or cure or get beyond, almost as if (almost) before TM they had been broken and TM had fixed them. This gets me to thinking about tent revival meetings in the South (which, of course, you can't help but attend a few of if you grow up in the South), in which the most fervent believers and most fundamentalist Bible-thumpers were ALL those who formerly were drunks or whores or thieves or something BAD. It's as if they don't feel they can adequately shout I've been SAVED! unless they feel they had a lot to be saved FROM. And *this* gets me to thinking about whether Maharishi always pitched TM to losers and people with problems and low self esteem because they become the best disciples. And *disciples* is what he was looking for. Think about it. Does the TMO really spend any energy trying to market TM to regular people, who have few problems in life and are just looking to enjoy it more? They do not. They focus on People With Problems. Kids doing badly in school. Criminals locked away in prisons. Veterans with PTSD. Can't this be seen as a continuation of a long-standing trend to look for prospective new students among populations who are more likely to be easy to convert into True Believers and thus become disciples? It's just an idea. YMMV.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Vero Beach probably has it's advantages too, price is one. A 3 bedroom flat in Nice could set you back 1,3 mill $ http://www.prestigeproperty.co.uk/property/168606/Apartment-Nice-France/ http://www.prestigeproperty.co.uk/property/168606/Apartment-Nice-France/ generally more than double that of Vero Beach http://www.homes.com/property/940-turtle-cove-ln-vero-beach-fl-32963/id-26602424/ http://www.homes.com/property/940-turtle-cove-ln-vero-beach-fl-32963/id-26602424/ Agreed to what you said about Nader, always liked the fellow. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Nablusoss, here in the states some FFers hie off in winter to a place in Florida called Vero Beach. Probably not as nice as Nice (-: Anyway, yes the meeting was good, though it went a little too late for my preference. imo Dr. Nader embodies a loving heart and brilliant mind and down to earth practicality. I think Maharishi chose wisely when he chose him. On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:20 AM, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Very nice report Buck, thanks for posting. I'll soon have a community meeting myself in Nice where I'm contemplating buying a house. Seems there are quite a few meditators down there in the sun :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: !Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is Coming to Fairfield!
Afterwords, out in the Dome entry area and on the sidewalks to the parking areas as the meeting closed and people left: a big WTF reaction was, that they actually came wearing the gold foil hats and robes and stuff. I can't say that Alex's brother or some of those others following after Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam also in full regalia did not necessarily look or seem particularly ethereal in the cult outfit. Though that might have just been the bad light on them. It did sort of look and feel like The Return of the King set for The Lord of the Rings. It was just a little narcissistic. However, Hagelin and our other movement dignitaries seated on stage facing the crowd were dressed secular in suits and such. Generally was dignity and was all more corporate than cult. Lots of good people with high-mindedness and well-intentioned. Deserves only a watching and of course transparency to see. It was a good meeting of the remaining meditating community. -Buck in the Dome mjackson74 asks: What did he say about the relationship of the US movement to Girish? No, he was not asked about that so did not get to that. Uptown that readily gets asked by meditators but it was not asked last night for him to comment on. Nobody spoke about that. That as a larger community question Is still unresolved, as in not spoken to. -Buck sharelong60: Nablusoss, here in the states some FFers hie off in winter to a place in Florida called Vero Beach. Probably not as nice as Nice (-: Anyway, yes the meeting was good, though it went a little too late for my preference. imo Dr. Nader embodies a loving heart and brilliant mind and down to earth practicality. I think Maharishi chose wisely when he chose him. mjackson74 asks: What did he say about the relationship of the US movement to Girish? MJ, No, he was not asked about that so did not get to that. Uptown that readily gets asked by meditators but it was not asked last night for him to comment on. Nobody spoke about that. That as a larger community question Is still unresolved, as in not spoken to. -Buck nablusoss1008 writes: Very nice report Buck, thanks for posting. I'll soon have a community meeting myself in Nice where I'm contemplating buying a house. Seems there are quite a few meditators down there in the sun :-) Was a Nice meditating community meeting. Non-meditators and townies would not have understood a lot of it. Though nothing was said that they could not have heard. It had some meditation news, some theoretical type of knowledge related to consciousness and meditation, some celebration, John Hagelin was a fun and witty MC, Bevan called in with some nice comments. We all got to sing the TM happy birthday song at a point in the end to our university's vice president. It was all nice. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, acquitted himself very well. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam and some of our TM Raja arrived in full regalia, in the hats and outfits having been driven to the Dome in their stretch limo. Context. After Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam was introduced briefly he spoke fondly of the Domes in Fairfield and their purpose. After that he turned to the open microphones for questions to answer. A usual sequence of touched community characters jumped to the mics. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam did a really fine job of handling that. Journalistically, earlier in the day in town asking and surveying around of what questions people would like to have asked of Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, in rapid-fire people easily asked about the lack of transparency and financial statements, our relationship with Girish Varma, the Pundits, the Domes. Other than the fact that none of these questions or concerns of substance got much of a chance to be asked it was a good meditator meeting. He said he'll be back, Jai Guru Dev, -Buck [ This meeting tonite is incredibly extremely really important for all of Transcendental Meditation. Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam, CEO of all of TM, will speak to the meditating community. Meeting with the Fairfield Meditating Community In the Golden Dome this Thursday evening, April 17, starting at 8:00 p.m.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with laughter.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Why does TM seem to focus on losers?
On 4/18/2014 3:32 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: One of the things I've noticed over the years is how many long-term TMers say things like, I'd be dead if it weren't for TM, or TM saved my life, or TM cured me of my depression/anxiety/suicidal thoughts/mental illness/whatever. That's funny - I don't recall ever seeing anyone post that, and I've been reading Yahoo Groups and Google Groups since 1998. And, we live just down the highway from the Maharishi Golden Dome. There must be hundreds of TMers around here that never said that. One wonders how many TMers Barry has contacted personally in the last twenty years, one or two, and the ones he has met would hardly say that TM saved their lives. Go figure. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the effort it takes him to do anything! I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the Simpsons. I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with laughter.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why TM teachers cannot get Shankara's teachings
On 4/18/2014 3:37 AM, cardemais...@yahoo.com wrote: FWIW, I seem to recall having seen tattvamasi (that's how it's spelled in DN, that is, without any spaces between the individual words)read as 'tattvam asi' , something like '(you) are the truth'. Be it as it may, the personal pronoun (tvam) is not necessary, because the verb form (asi) clearly expresses the fact that the second person singular is meant. FYI, almost all the Upanishads were compiled after the historical Buddha's passing. The schools of Vedanta are named after the relation they see between Atman and Brahman: According to Advaita Vedanta, there is no difference. According to Vishishtadvaita the jivatman is a part of Brahman, and hence is similar, but not identical. According to Dvaita, all individual souls (jivatmans) and matter are eternal and mutually separate entities. Other schools of Vedanta include Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita, Vallabha's Suddhadvaita and Chaitanya's Acintya Bhedabheda. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the
effort it takes him to do anything!
I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the Simpsons.
I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm?
From the IMDB:
Actor:
1. The Big Bang Theory Stephen Hawking (2 episodes, 2012)
- The Extract Obliteration (2012) TV episode (voice) Stephen Hawking
- The Hawking Excitation (2012) TV episode Stephen Hawking
2. London 2012 Paralympic Opening Ceremony: Enlightenment (2012) (TV)
Narrator
3. The Simpsons Stephen Hawking (4 episodes, 1999-2010)
- Elementary School Musical (2010) TV episode (voice) Stephen Hawking
- Stop or My Dog Will Shoot (2007) TV episode (voice) Stephen Hawking
- Don't Fear the Roofer (2005) TV episode (voice) Stephen Hawking
- They Saved Lisa's Brain (1999) TV episode (voice) Stephen Hawking
4. Late Night with Conan O'Brien Voice (1 episode, 2003)
- Episode dated 25 July 2003 (2003) TV episode (voice) Voice
5. Star Trek: The Next Generation Stephen Hawking (1 episode,
1993)
... aka Star Trek: TNG - USA (promotional abbreviation)
- Descent: Part 1 (1993) TV episode (as Professor Stephen Hawking)
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067083/
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with
laughter.
From the IMDB:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen Hawking really
was Stephen Hawking. Hawking points out that doctor Cooper (played by Jim
Pearson) made a simple mathematical error on page two of his paper and
therefore his whole thesis is wrong. Dr Cooper faints. What was fascinating to
me was Hawking really responded to the humour of the situation, you could see
even with his almost complete paralysis, his eyes shined, and his body quivered
slightly as it attempted to smile, that he was internally cracking up with
laughter.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber to NRO? It's on Mr Ed's blog somewhere, not as an essay in itself but mentioned on one his many pages... Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is a rather obvious nonstarter. It's been soundly refuted by a host of philosophers (including Feser) and even some scientists. Mr Ed didn't like it? Stone me! It must be great having all these amazing minds doing your thinking for you. I don't take your mangling of Feser's name seriously. I just think it's juvenile. Heh, heh.. BTW, did you notice that Curtis doesn't go along with your metaphysical scientistic assertion that only what is measurable is real? Good for him. And it's supposed to affect me how? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are so into?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What are the *benefits* of believing in God?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And a little of mine. I'm an atheist for purely pragmatic, Occam's Razor reasons. No need to postulate a God to explain existence is a simpler and more efficient explanation of the universe than A God was/is required for it to exist. Actually, I think about Occam's Razor when I am trying to make sense of these things. And it's often the everyday occurrences that come to mind. And yes, I think the possibility that there is life after death, that we have a soul, and there is rebirth, are the garlic to the atheist. (I did like that phrase). And I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation of how people develop certain tendencies or predispositions when there is no exposure to such experiences. In many cases the most sensible explanation I can come up with, is that there is such a thing as rebirth. And yes, I don't think an atheist wants to go there, because it opens the door to the notion that there is some sort of organizing power at work. What do you think? On the other hand, you can dismiss such anomalies as this as pure coincidence or genetics. Maybe that's a good enough explanation. The concept of a God *complicates* things, rather than simplifying them. That would be fine with me. I am trying to go about understanding things, like most of us. And for me, I've come to the conclusion that there is a higher power at work, even if there is much I don't understand about it. As an example, if there is a God, and He/She/It has a PLAN for all of this, how is it that all these atheists aren't part of it? Were they created by someone/something else? What exactly is this else? And this is saying nothing about stuff like plagues, floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. If you're an atheist, you get to look at these things and say, That's a real pity, but shit happens. If you're a Believer, you have to say, That's a real pity, including the fact that God made it happen. But it's not our place to question WHY He/She/It made it happen. Who says the higher power needs to be involved in the daily occurrences of things. I certainly don't. I think it is perfectly plausible for believer to come to that same conclusion that shit happens Why not. There is nothing that says God must be tied to such events. Kind of rushing here again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Sometimes I look at the way that believers react to the word atheist -- spitting it out as if it were an epithet -- and find it a curious reaction. I mean, with the exception of a vocal few who make their livings by poking theists just to watch them react, I don't see most everyday atheists (and I know quite a few, living where I live) reacting to believers in the same fashion. Unless the believers are trying to sell the atheists their beliefs, that is. Then all bets are off and the atheists can react to the proselytizing believers however they wish. Anyway, it's like the believers perceive the atheists as a *threat*, and as if by believing what they do and spit daring to say it aloud or write it somewhere they are trying to *take* something from them. I don't get this. *What*, after all, could an atheist take from a believer in God? They've got all they need by believing that there is someone/something IN CHARGE, and that there is a PLAN for all of this, right? So why are they so antagonistic towards a few vocal atheists speaking their minds and suggesting that no one is in charge and that there is no plan? To help me understand this, I'm asking the believers in God here to speak up and tell me what the BENEFITS of such a belief are. Such that you would miss them and feel something had been taken from you if you no longer believed? What would such BENEFITS be? Surely you can name a few.
[FairfieldLife] The End must be nigh
Wow, all this chatter about God, Theism, etc yawn. The end must be nigh. Oh wait, never mind, this is the Funny Farm Lounge. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that what you really meant to ask? Here's a question for you: Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe different? When I say the universe I mean everything in it, us, our lives, pasts, futures. Everything. What do we lose without this fabulous thing you guys are so into?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons... you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both of us... then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU. Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date. Even your insults are parroted from someone else. To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. Kids were out this week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version of the God Idea?
For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd. Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've experienced far too much of your dirty debating tactics to be willing to go another round with you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons... you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual for both of us... then you accuse ME of starting a fight with YOU. Shortest ride on the Judy crazy train I have had to date. Even your insults are parroted from someone else. To Ann:Might be the school break schedule. i have more time over the holidays. Kids were out this week. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest debating tactics. Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty, Curtis. But he always shows up at Christmas and Easter - funny that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist distractions. My statements about a guy on a blog who is not in a give and take discussion with me are in no way parallel to chatting directly with a person on a forum like this and derailing the discussion with personal attacks. I know that you will never understand this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so blatant: You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to express their opinions. But you don't have a conversational handle on the philosophical ideas do you? So instead you do your formulaic Judy thing. To each his or her own. Have another look at Curtis's critique of Feser and ask yourself whether he followed his own recommendation, or whether he repeatedly viciously attacked Feser personally. Excuse me, I have to go take a bath now.
