[FairfieldLife] Re: Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True. Emotions can be exacerbated by bliss. A lot of people in the world never experience the purifying power of the white-hot fire of the bliss fire-iron, and they bury emotions deep down in a prison, then they grow old and gray beings. As you stated in your earlier post no one can escape bliss. It seems to be the driving force behind creation and evolving. There are however differences in the levels of bliss-fire people can consciously contain and hence be aware of. However if you can be aware of even a little of it, and also appreciate this subtle energy or fire, you can also gradually learn to contain more of it. I think it is true that infusing the bliss-fire into your being can help with physical pain, and it can even cure it completely. It regenerates the cells. However, I think all emotion either must come out of its prison, or it must be dissolved. The bliss-fire purifies like a hot iron in a wound. True bliss, if you manage to experience it for a while, has a tendency to activate many kinds of hidden emotions, affects, feelings, bodily sensations, you have not been aware of earlier. If you cannot contain these activations and appropriately work with them, you most probably start to act them out, or you feel illness related symptoms. I suspect this phenomenon has created the interpretation that bliss is stupid. Bliss is not stupid. People just are not capable of consciously harnessing this energy appropriately. The bliss-fire includes in it both the light and the dark. It is nondual. People tend to appreciate only the light aspect, and may have wishes that it will wipe out the darkness. It won't, because the heavy, dark energies are included in the bliss-fire. If you can appreciate only the light aspect of bliss-fire, you will be in trouble. With that bias you will likely end up with the conclusion that bliss is stupid. And it does not occur to these people, who can even claim themselves to be enlightened, that it is their attitude, their perspective, that is biased.Or they are not enough evolved in their emotional, interpersonal etc. intelligence. If you can gradually learn to appreciate equally the light and dark aspects of life in yourself keeping them present simultaneously, the whole picture changes. There will be less alternation with periods of bliss and heavy ppurification, the so called `dark nights of the soul'. Everything becomes gradually bliss-fire. The people seeking something higher than bliss here are delusional, thinking that you can escape it. You cannot. The comments of people regurgitating what some guru or other said about bliss being bondage merely shows that they have never experienced the bright white purifying fire, and they think it is a game. If they ever encounter it in reality, they will likely go mad because they are not ready for it. I agree with this. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me, Sir, Madame: Could you spare me some Bliss? I hold out my cup, with sad eyes. No, that's ok. Where do I go, what do I do? I scared, I'm all alone. Where am I? I'm watching everything go by, fast. I'm in New York City, with my son. I see a little girl, standing behind a gate near a brownstone house, In Queens... I see the innocence surrounding her, and say, 'Hi, little girl!' My son says, Dad, what the hell are you doing? Did you see how scared she was? No, I said, I saw innocence. Look at these people we pass; Can you see the adults, stuck in their little petty ego thoughts? Do you see the innocent child, baby, tree, bird? Do you see the difference? See how it's all spinning around, now? It's really simple you know. Sorry to say, my son, is not that into meditation at the present time; And is more into beer as his meditation technique... And that's ok. The bliss is located in the oneness. It's not of the intellect, more of the heart. Babies know it. Egos don't. Simple, just drop the ego, stop thinking, Allow the energy of the mind to fall into the heart. Feel your center, your feeling center. It will never steer you wrong. The mind will cause you great grief. The heart will cause you great love. You choose which it will BE. R.G. Sunday, June, 2008 Thank you R.G. for your beautiful poem. You and I both know there is nowhere to go. Life unfolds as we are capable of receiving at each moment. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, bliss is an energy unlike any emotion of love or compassion. Bliss is purifying, more like fire than love, yet love and compassion are entirely bound up within it. It courses through the body and the brain re-wiring the neurons, changing the electromagnetic state, and rebuilding wasting muscle tissue. It crashes in through your window at night like waves crashing in from an ocean. It flows and courses through your energy field and outwards and all over the cosmos. Bliss is indestructible, it cannot be destroyed. Those who want enlightenment over bliss are fools because your are made of bliss and there is no way out, and no-where else to go. They live in self- delusion, inventing worlds and universes that do not exist. Bliss is THE ONLY PERFECT SOLID. It has no cracks, it has no particles that make it up. It has no atoms or sub-atoms. It is a wall of bliss, a block, an unbreakable block, and it is everything in the universe. Only fools think there is something 'outside' of that which is everything and in which they have lived and breathed since birth, and even before that. You cannot escape bliss, and one day, bliss will rise up from below the surface of ignorance, like molten lava coming up from the ground all over the world, and will engulf all beings and all things will be changed. This is not belief, this is an artifact of the electro- magnetic field, the gravity field (and the fields which underlay that). The Earth's electro-magnetic and gravity fields and their connection to the Sun and the Suns electro-magnetic/gravity connection the the black hole at the center of the vast spinning galaxy, and the galaxy's connection to all the other galaxies -- those fields ARE your brain and you are it, and the neurons always connect in sub-servience to bliss as coherence engulfs the field. You are not a flesh brain, you are a field of energy processing through the world. Bliss is Awesome. OffWorld I loved this post. In my opinion bliss is stupid only if you use it in stupid ways. MMY had a profound understanding of its value in life. However it seems to me that he used this invaluable, but extremely powerful form of subtle energy partly in stupid ways to enhance his self inflation and narcissism. Bliss is irreplaceable, when you have to work through heavy emotions, physical pain etc. Skill in action means infusing the stuck energies, heaviness, intense subtle fear etc, with bliss, and the result is transformation of the blocked energies and deep healing. I have myself been lucky to have been born with hereditary progressive distal muscular dystrophy. I have done a lot of work in my body using bliss as I described above. Now at age 57 I'm in good shape. Actually I suspect I live physically more active life than most other women of my age. The process I have gone through has not always been energetically easy, but I claim that it would have been impossible had I not had consciously available plenty of subtle energies sensed as bliss. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? This is what I understand you to be explaining here. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Who here still believes that enlightenment confers perfection on the one who claims to have realized (or who actually *has* realized) enlightenment? Who here believes that the actions of the enlightened are *by definition* in accord with the laws of nature and thus are *always* life supporting? I don't rule it out. BUT: As I understand the premise (and have argued before a number of times), it has *NO* implications for the behavior of others. It does NOT mean, for example, that if someone who is enlightened tells you to do something, you should do it. It does NOT mean that if the enlightened person does Bad Things him/herself, you should accept them. This is where folks tend to get fouled up. The perfection, if it exists, is in the enlightened person saying, Do this. Nature wants the person to say that. But Nature does not necessarily want you to do it, only for the enlightened person to *tell* you to do it. Nature may want you to say to yourself, That's dumb, I'm not going to do that. Nature wants the person to do the Bad Things (we cannot know why), but NOT for everyone else to accept them. Nature may want others to be outraged and prevent the person from doing the Bad Things, or punish him/her for having done them. It all goes back to the old Unfathomable is the course of action. You can't second-guess it; you aren't relieved of the necessity of making your own decisions. The perfection of the enlightened person's actions is relevant ONLY to the enlightened person. Those of us in ignorance shouldn't respond to the enlightened person any differently than we do to anybody else. That the person is enlightened is irrelevant to the rest of us. And who thinks that this piece of dogma is a self- serving and often-abused piece of...uh...ignorance that deserves to be flushed down the commode once and for all? The dogma that the enlightened person's actions are perfect is one thing. The dogma that THEREFORE you should accept everything the enlightened person does is something else entirely. That's the piece that's ignorant, IMHO.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another angle to it is that whatever actions you assume authorship of, you get to take (karmic) responsibility for. Michael Dean Goodman has pointed out that in the phrase spontaneous right action, the emphasis is on spontaneous, not right. The premise about enlightenment is that the enlightened person always acts spontaneously according to the dictates of nature, without mistakenly assuming authorship of his/her actions. If a president feels himself to be waging a war on behalf of God and don't take authorship for this war, he will get to heaven for so dutifully obeying God's will? Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Most Dangerous Dogma ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If he takes authorship of obeyeing God's will in waging the war, he takes on its karmic consequences, according to the premise. If a guru takes authorship of believing he is enlightened and that all his actions are life-supporting, then according to that line of reasoning, he will be karmically responsible for the fruits of his actions. Enlightenment is an elusive concept. The guru can have access to a high unity state consciousness, and at the same time be very low in many lines of development : morally, psychosexually,emotionally, in values etc. This is a very common combination in gurus who have come from the Eastern traditions to the west. And most probably this problem is very common in the East also, but it is not always so easy to expose those. Eastern people have not yet been able to question the morality of their gurus. So strong this belief is in those cultures. Basically access to unity consciousness can highly accelerate one's cognitive,moral, emotional, psychosexual etc.development. This isn't however often the case in people who believe strictly to this dogma. This belief gives a promise of a spiritual by-pass people dream of. It is rather heavy to work through one's shadow issues, question one's values and morals. But there is no development in those lines without that kind of work. I believe that without that belief the eastern gurus and hence also their followers would be spontaneously morally, emotionally, and psychosexually much more responsible persons. I personally don't consider a person enlightened if he/she is not spontaneously capable of responsible behavior of high standards. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and Elevated Eye Pressure
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, freeradicalfederation [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: And congrats on maintaining excellent vision. I assume you at at least 55+ years old. If you don't require reading glasses, you are doing great -- and it might even be fair to attribute your excellent vision to the reduced stress you enjoy from TM practice. If you wanted to make that argument, I would not oppose it. I'm 58. I don't require any glasses except for reading tiny print. Have you noted an above-average occurrence of glaucoma in long-term meditators? It seems that would follow from elevated eye pressure, if this is anything to worry about. Or wouldn't we expect to see the glaucoma until we got older? I'm not suggesting that TM causes glaucoma. That's a much different statement from saying that TM elevates intraocular pressure in some cases. Our data only shows that TM can elevate intraocular pressure. This is interesting information. I have been meditating for 35 years. A few months ago an optician found out that I have slightly elevated intraocular pressure in the other eye. The value was between 20 to 21. If I remember correctly the upper limit for normal pressure is 20. Next monday there will be a follow-up measurement. MY eyesight is good, except mild nearsightedness in the other eye, and somewhat more nearsightedness in the eye that had elevated pressure. I can still read at age 57 even tiny texts without glasses. Irmeli
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
I agree fully with what you write below. However that is not the perspective I want to bring forth here. It is useful to look at complex issues from many perspectives. If we can hold simultaneously many perspectives, we get closer to the truth. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems you admit two points: 1) an Islamic baby adopted by you would have the same education you have. 2) Islam is not necessarily what you see today since it was quite capable of producing well educated people some time ago. It can still do this and it does do this still today for certain people--not the ones you see around you, quite apparently. That is the sum total of my argument. Education is the key. And education is planned--you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to come to that conclusion. I've spent my entire adult life in a university context. What gets taught in kindergarten is not determined by the kindergarten teacher but by graduate school professors who are paid by someone and whose work and research are funded by someone. --- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: The Bible contains statements that women are to be obedient to their fathers and husbands, yet we manage to transcend thatthough probably only because the powers that be want to collect taxes from two incomes instead of just one and they want the children earlier than they would get them if mothers stayed at home. Even so we can, for example, try to understand what obedience really is. The word comes from a Latin root meaning to listen to and, deeper, from to hear. So, in the original sense, obedience isn't the mindless thing it has to be in a military context. I am sure that Hatice didn't ask the Prophet, How high, my Love, whenever he said, Jump. She was his teacher, so she would have listened not to what his mouth was saying but to what his soul's need was and respond to that. I like the etymology of the word obedience as you describe it. I however am afraid that being able to live it in that context lies more in our future than in the past as it requires rather advanced interpersonal skills. A person who is at mythical fundamentalist level cannot have those skills, because this stage is about control and following. Individuals on their own right don't exist yet in that world view. The Sharia law in Islam accepts beating of wifes as long as you don't inflict permanent physical injury. In that worldview the notion of psychic trauma caused by beating, doesn't apparently even exist yet. When there is also stated the idea that women are clearly lower in their moral development that men, it makes me doubt that this kind vicious circle that keeps people stuck in violence, can be broken even by the best kind of obedience. Islam has been made into a religion of fear, but it was not that and is not that in its essence. This is a relatively modern interpretation, which suits the rulers that be, just as fundamentalist American Christianity is a religion of fear that very much suits the rulers that be and who have made it into what it is. Remember that Islam produced Harun al-Rashid, one of the wisest rulers our world has seen, and Islam, as you know, flourished under him. Islam also produced great poets (Rumi, among them) and great philosophers and mathematicians. Islam was an advanced culture in medieval times compared with Europe. But it has been stuck, or regressing already for many centuries. Blaming dictators makes people helpless and powerless. Maharishi did say that we get the rulers we deserve. I take that with a very large grain of salt because I do not know that this is true any more than you probably do. You believe it, just as others believe what their religion tells them. Maharishi also said that mothers should stay at homeand you can see for yourself what the status of women is in the TMO. Do you believe him when it comes to the status of women? I did quote MMY only because this is a forum where people have TM-background. MMY has never been my guru. However I do perceive myself that on a large scale people get the rulers they deserve. In democracies we elect them, and even dictators cannot stay in power without enough supporters. Do we in fact get the rulers we deserve? In a way, no doubt. In another way, who knows? How did Germany get Hitler, for example? Well, for one thing, the Catholic vote for him was mandated from the pulpit of every Catholic Church in Germany, and his vice chancellor, the power behind the throne, was a Papal Chamberlain. Even so, Hitler had
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irmeli, your question is right on the money. Hitler was schooled in Le Bon's 1895 The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. It is still a good source for how social engineering is done. Young Dove recently posted an excellent rant on how easy it is to sway the masses. It is the result of education or, rather, programming, and brainwashing that you see in the Muslim world today. You can also see it in American fundamentalists and in the American black community. I think it goes far deeper than that. I remember even MMY said that people get the kind of leaders they deserve. I perceive the reason of the Muslim world being stuck in many places to medieval times, is due to the structure of their religion. In it there are ultimate beliefs that are not easy to go beyond, transcend to a higher level. One is the command that women have to be always fully submissive to their husband, father etc. Another is that the government of a state can never been separated from Islam. Islam is the state. Third is that these commands are the eternal truth, and cannot never be criticized. By doing so you are going to eternal hell. But if you have made some transgressions, becoming a martyr guarantees your place in heaven. Islam is a religion based on fear. This fear keeps its followers on the level of shame/honour communication. This is bound to create violence and retaliation. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] FW: A university where everyone meditates.
A university where everyone meditates. If you are having problems viewing this email, please click here to view the web version. Be sure to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to your address book list to ensure future email deliveries. Enjoying this note? Please forward it on! A university where everyone meditates. This blew me away. In April, David Lynch and Moby (along with a number of other luminaries) are joining together for a weekend on Creativity, Sustainability, and Peace. This is big news in itself, but what's even more impressive, to me, is who's hosting the weekend. Maharishi University of Management (MUM) is a school in Iowa that offers programs much like those found in any mainstream university—from a BA in Computer Science to an MBA in Sustainability—but it's unique in that it provides consciousness-based education: all students learn Transcendental Meditation as part of the curriculum. This seems like one of those compelling pieces of evidence that the world really IS changing and that the shift so many of us speak of is having an effect. I mean, really. Did you ever dream we'd see meditation as a part of a standard university program? If you're at all intrigued by this, now's an excellent time to find out more. Again, in April, the university is holding its Visitors Weekend on Consciousness, Creativity, Sustainability, and Peace. If you know anyone who'd be interested, or if you're personally curious about a university that incorporates the development of consciousness and awareness into the standard fields of study, then have a look: The details of the weekend are as follows: When: April 25 to 28 Where: Maharishi University of Management (MUM), Fairfield, Iowa What: The schedule can be found here, though highlights include the following: Filmmaker David Lynch: Catching the Big Fish: Creativity and Pure Consciousness Brain researcher Fred Travis, PhD: What happens to your brain when you meditate? (includes a live brain wave demonstration) Physicist John Hagelin, PhD: “Quantum physics and consciousness—going beyond thought” Donovan, with special guest Moby: A free concert for all visitors You can find out more (and register) here: http://www.lynchweekend.org. It's an amazing opportunity to hear some incredible speakers (not to mention seeing a few performances); all the participants are volunteering their time because they believe in the school's core values. Even if you're not interested, please pass this on! MUM is a wonderful example of what more universities could do. Part of what's so great about the program is that it's a model that works: graduates have gone on to schools such as Harvard Business School, Johns Hopkins Medical School, Stanford, Yale, and others, and (perhaps even better...), ACTs national alumni survey found out that MUM's alumni are more satisfied with their college education than graduates from over 1,000 other colleges. To me this seems obvious—they're given time to meditate and supported in developing their own awareness, and after all, how can any of us expect to fulfill our educational potential if our inner creative potential isn't cultivated as well? (Still, sometimes those who haven't yet explored such practices can use a little convincing. :) Have a look, though, and imagine what the world would be like if all educational institutions were like this. Here's to a future where our inner awareness balances the outer... Siona (and the Gaia Team) PS. One more thing. :) The David Lynch Foundation, which helped sponsor this newsletter, just announced that all new students who enroll at Maharishi University will receive a scholarship covering the full tuition for the Transcendental Meditation course... so anyone who attends will get this benefit for free. 152,686 other cool people get this newsletter. Siona Synchronicity Coordinator G'kar lucid dreamer wanderer7 Wanderer 7 rudyan prairie light Portia
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz hagen.j.holtz@ wrote: Irmeli said: Practically every time they (the nuslims) publicly say something, they make themselves just ridiculous, and show that their capacity to formal operational thinking, or abstract conceptual thinking, is poor. They combine categories in a wrong way all the time. And this is not about belief systems. It is about where they are in their cognitive development. And I consider their beliefsystems to be the cause of their backwardness. Irmeli, what you report from Finland fits perfectly into the picture, which we also have on German grounds with this ethnic group from time to time. So your description illustrates it very felicitously. But for all that I personally consider their beliefsystem not as being the main cause of their backwardness, but rather their lack of willingness to go one step ahead. And I think, that western influence has been contributing to this disclaiming attitude a lot, because the interests of the west had predominantly been of economic and earlier even of generally subdueing nature, living the reckless fruitless hubris of feeling superior. And now we harvest a little the fruits of our sowing. Hagen I have just read the book `Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. On this basis I would claim that many of the Muslim beliefs are really weird and scary. Reading the book convinced me that these beliefs truly are behind their severe problems. I also saw that it is not easy to interpret those commandments in a more `advanced' more humane way, because they actually are very literal concrete practical instructions. And one fundamental instruction is not to question these instructions. It is about submitting yourself without questioning. Irmeli All human beings are the same. They all have the same emotions. All laugh when happy and weep when sad. There are no broad civilizations that produce radically different behavior in human beings. All are capable of violence. (Christians killed tens of millions in the course of the 20th century, far, far more than did Muslims). Few commit much violence except in war. You can walk around any place in Cairo at 1 am perfectly safely, but cannot do that everywhere safely in many major US cities, including the nation's capital, Washington, DC. Even the idea of Islam as a cultural world or civilization opposed to the Christian West is a false construct. Eastern Mediterranean honor cultures (Greece, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Syria) have more in common with each other across the Christian-Muslim divide than either has in common with Britain or the US. And, Muslim states don't make their alliances by religion. Egypt was allied with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, then switched to the US in the 1970s and until the present. Four of the five non-NATO allies of the US are Muslim countries. Turkey is even a full NATO ally and fought along side the US in the Korean War. [...] The Bush administration policy is to continually insinuate that the Muslim world is the new Soviet Union and full of sinister forces that require the US to go to war against them. But at the same time, America has warm relations with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc. When Saudi Arabia's then crown prince (now king) Abdullah came to the US, Bush brought him to the Crawford ranch, held hands with him and kissed him on each cheek. This two-faced policy and self-contradictory rhetoric has contributed to growing hatred and bigotry toward Muslims in the US, which is no less worrisome than the hatred Jews faced in Europe in the 1920s. It is dangerous because of what it can become. Read the whole thing: http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-and-anti-arab.html = Most Muslims 'desire democracy' BBC News, February 27, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7267100.stm The largest survey to date of Muslims worldwide suggests the vast majority want Western democracy and freedoms, but do not want them to be imposed. The poll by Gallup of more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 nations found most wanted the West to instead focus on changing its negative view of Muslims and Islam. The huge survey began following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. The overwhelming majority of those asked condemned them and subsequent attacks, citing religious reasons. The poll, which claims to represent the views of 90% the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, is to be published next month as part
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: Hi Angela! I also know personally some Muslims or former Muslims, who have come as refugees to Finland, and they are truly fine people. E.g. I have learned to know a conductor from Afghanistan, to whom I'm hiring an apartment. I don't perceive any serious defects in his reasoning. During the years I have also hired apartments to many kinds of Muslims. And I have seen severe domestic violence.The Muslim men are allowed to beat their wifes. The women are practically always very submissive, fearful.They don't speak to me, even if I'm a woman. Even the man interviewed in TV, I described earlier seemed to be a decent human being. However there were glaring defects in his reasoning concerning those matters.In other areas of life he probably would do better. Strong religious beliefs makes it almost impossible to think clearly, because then you would need to start questioning the ultimate truths of the doctrine.The same problem is in other religions. Although questioning is in them usually easier. The sanctions of doing it are not so horrifying. Irmeli Healthy humans can generally be really nice, spiritual, friendly people. However, they are also capable of subscribing to belief systems whose realization can shock modern liberal minds. We westerners put a value on freedom of expression. We have no problem with rational dialog on any subject. These nice friendly spirits have made death threats to anyone making the slightest satirical comment on their icons. They shut down dialog with threats. These wonderful neighbors can be very kind, but they also have iron-age values that clash with the modern. Imagine if we transplanted a group of brilliant ancient minds like Aristotle's into modern times. They may come off as polished, intellectual, astute people. However they would be offended by they way we treat our women, look for non-military solutions, give freedom to slaves, question authority and so on. No doubt many third world people embrace modernity, assimilate it and contribute wonderfully to society. Part of this process requires understanding ancient tribal/religious identities as secondary to modern beliefs in humanism, tolerance, and science. s. Stu, I again agree with you in this. However I have recently started to ask myself this question: Muslims were in medieval times probably a more evolved and tolerant culture than the Christian Europeans. In an absolute sense they probably were not more evolved than they now are, but the Europeans were then even lower. Then why is it that the Christian Europe, or the western culture generally has been able to evolve hugely, while the Muslim culture has got stuck in the their medieval times level? Irmeli
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
Hi Angela! At least you can have that kind of job. You can choose your husband, and divorce him, if he treats you badly.If a man rapes you, you are not made guilty for it, and being killed by your family members because of this crime. Women's position may not be perfect in the west either, but it is hugely better than in the east. It is worst in the Muslim culture, but not much better in India, China, Tibet etc. The Tibetan word woman, means 'born low'. The Purusha men probably have been in their attitudes been strongly influenced by the Indian culture. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who's we, white man? We think we don't hold slaves only because we don't understand that a sweat shop in China is tantamount to slavery. When China tried, recently, once again, to do something about it, American corporate interests blocked their efforts completely --in a kind of non-military solution. We seek non military solutions? Since when? Wasn't the 20th century one of the bloodiest in history? And it was all engineered by the white boys. We have made some token progress with regard to the status of women, but you see how easily our Purusha men forgot all about that. Last time I taught at a university in the States, I got $10,000 less per year than the men, less qualified, and doing the same job. --- Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: Hi Angela! I also know personally some Muslims or former Muslims, who have come as refugees to Finland, and they are truly fine people. E.g. I have learned to know a conductor from Afghanistan, to whom I'm hiring an apartment. I don't perceive any serious defects in his reasoning. During the years I have also hired apartments to many kinds of Muslims. And I have seen severe domestic violence.The Muslim men are allowed to beat their wifes. The women are practically always very submissive, fearful.They don't speak to me, even if I'm a woman. Even the man interviewed in TV, I described earlier seemed to be a decent human being. However there were glaring defects in his reasoning concerning those matters.In other areas of life he probably would do better. Strong religious beliefs makes it almost impossible to think clearly, because then you would need to start questioning the ultimate truths of the doctrine.The same problem is in other religions. Although questioning is in them usually easier. The sanctions of doing it are not so horrifying. Irmeli Healthy humans can generally be really nice, spiritual, friendly people. However, they are also capable of subscribing to belief systems whose realization can shock modern liberal minds. We westerners put a value on freedom of expression. We have no problem with rational dialog on any subject. These nice friendly spirits have made death threats to anyone making the slightest satirical comment on their icons. They shut down dialog with threats. These wonderful neighbors can be very kind, but they also have iron-age values that clash with the modern. Imagine if we transplanted a group of brilliant ancient minds like Aristotle's into modern times. They may come off as polished, intellectual, astute people. However they would be offended by they way we treat our women, look for non-military solutions, give freedom to slaves, question authority and so on. No doubt many third world people embrace modernity, assimilate it and contribute wonderfully to society. Part of this process requires understanding ancient tribal/religious identities as secondary to modern beliefs in humanism, tolerance, and science. s. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must have some very different Muslims in Europe than the ones I have met here. In 1982 I taught a very unusual class of ESL at Kent State University. All 25 guys from Muslim and Arabic speaking countries. They were an amazing bunch of young gentlemen, and the only classes I've ever taught that were similar were the tenth grade boys at MSAE. Those young Muslims were intelligent, kind, and spiritual. I've kept in touch with a number of them, and they continue to be what they were then, except that with age, kindness has become more important to them than intelligence. a Those Muslim's I described I have not met personally. I was referring to interviews I have seen on TV or read from a newspaper or magazine. And every single time I have perceived errors in their conceptual thinking. Most recent was an interview of a Muslim spiritual leader in Finland. He was considered to be very moderate in his thinking. He explained a lot about what Muslim women are allowed to do, and what not, and why their community controls so much their behaviour. He explained how this actually benefits and protects the women. He also said that men and women are equal. Then the interviewer asked about the female genital mutilation. The man told he does not accept it. Then the interviewer said that it is done here in Finland also. The man admitted it. The interviewer asked then what he has done to stop this practise. He answered: I'm not the guard of my brother. What kind of logic is this? He doesn't guard his brothers, but he says he guards his sisters to protect them. But actually allows the most terrible cruelty being done to girls, because he does not guard what the Muslim community does to their girls, even if he does not accept this doing. This is truly convoluted reasoning. In every interview so far I have perceived some similar sort fundamental errors in their conceptual reasoning. Did you ever discuss these kinds of matters with those young men? Irmeli
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irmeli said: Practically every time they (the nuslims) publicly say something, they make themselves just ridiculous, and show that their capacity to formal operational thinking, or abstract conceptual thinking, is poor. They combine categories in a wrong way all the time. And this is not about belief systems. It is about where they are in their cognitive development. And I consider their beliefsystems to be the cause of their backwardness. Irmeli, what you report from Finland fits perfectly into the picture, which we also have on German grounds with this ethnic group from time to time. So your description illustrates it very felicitously. But for all that I personally consider their beliefsystem not as being the main cause of their backwardness, but rather their lack of willingness to go one step ahead. And I think, that western influence has been contributing to this disclaiming attitude a lot, because the interests of the west had predominantly been of economic and earlier even of generally subdueing nature, living the reckless fruitless hubris of feeling superior. And now we harvest a little the fruits of our sowing. Hagen I have just read the book `Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. On this basis I would claim that many of the Muslim beliefs are really weird and scary. Reading the book convinced me that these beliefs truly are behind their severe problems. I also saw that it is not easy to interpret those commandments in a more `advanced' more humane way, because they actually are very literal concrete practical instructions. And one fundamental instruction is not to question these instructions. It is about submitting yourself without questioning. Irmeli
Irmeli: (Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium)
Hi Angela! I also know personally some Muslims or former Muslims, who have come as refugees to Finland, and they are truly fine people. E.g. I have learned to know a conductor from Afghanistan, to whom I'm hiring an apartment. I don't perceive any serious defects in his reasoning. During the years I have also hired apartments to many kinds of Muslims. And I have seen severe domestic violence.The Muslim men are allowed to beat their wifes. The women are practically always very submissive, fearful.They don't speak to me, even if I'm a woman. Even the man interviewed in TV, I described earlier seemed to be a decent human being. However there were glaring defects in his reasoning concerning those matters.In other areas of life he probably would do better. Strong religious beliefs makes it almost impossible to think clearly, because then you would need to start questioning the ultimate truths of the doctrine.The same problem is in other religions. Although questioning is in them usually easier. The sanctions of doing it are not so horrifying. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, Irmeli, I have discussed female mutilation with these gentlemen. They are no longer young. Let's see, they were in their early twenties in 1982, so they are now pushing fifty. They are all intelligent, kind, and spiritually inclined men who appear to respect women. At least, they respect me very much. I was their teacher, and they still think of me that way, which is a little weird from my point of view. So it must be the case that not all Muslims are stupid and bigoted. a --- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those Muslim's I described I have not met personally. I was referring to interviews I have seen on TV or read from a newspaper or magazine. And every single time I have perceived errors in their conceptual thinking. Most recent was an interview of a Muslim spiritual leader in Finland. He was considered to be very moderate in his thinking. He explained a lot about what Muslim women are allowed to do, and what not, and why their community controls so much their behaviour. He explained how this actually benefits and protects the women. He also said that men and women are equal. Then the interviewer asked about the female genital mutilation. The man told he does not accept it. Then the interviewer said that it is done here in Finland also. The man admitted it. The interviewer asked then what he has done to stop this practise. He answered: I'm not the guard of my brother. What kind of logic is this? He doesn't guard his brothers, but he says he guards his sisters to protect them. But actually allows the most terrible cruelty being done to girls, because he does not guard what the Muslim community does to their girls, even if he does not accept this doing. This is truly convoluted reasoning. In every interview so far I have perceived some similar sort fundamental errors in their conceptual reasoning. Did you ever discuss these kinds of matters with those young men? Irmeli Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: Its a fantastic tool to understanding how people come to religion. Why religion still exists in advanced societies. And how religion changes as people's life conditions vary. I would like to turn this around to: People's life conditions change, as their religious beliefs change or evolve. For the most part the role of the big religions is to make sure people's religious beliefs don't change or evolve. Religions are like huge freighters that have difficulty changing course when facts come into light. I have recently been actively participating in discussions in some Ken Wilber related forums, just because it provides a conceptual framework, that includes the spiraldynamics related understanding of human evolving in many different lines of intelligences, not just in the values line. This kind of framework makes discussions about e.g. spiritual issues much more sensible. Often people speak about their spiritual state experiences in totally different terms depending on their world view, cultural background etc. They are speaking about similar inner states, but still cannot understand each other. Years ago I participated on this forum on a discussion with 'no I'. It was quite frustrating as we didn't understand each other at all. Later it occurred to me that we had probably pretty similar inner state experiences but described them very differently. Irmeli I was involved a bit with some Ken Wilber discussion groups but was turned off by too many bliss-ninny types who don't think out of the box. Many of these people may be having similar inner state experiences but they get caught up in religious dogma and get lost in myths. Its like they are stuck in quicksand. The only thing left is to lend them a hand - and a discussion forum is no place for that sort of intervention. s. I agree with this. However I have found it helpful for myself to write down my ideas about certain issues, and let others on these forums criticize those ideas. But discussions in which the participants don't understand each other are not helpful, just frustrating. People may use the same words meaning different things, or describe similar experiences with different words without any significant mutual understanding. In some Wilber forums I have experienced precisely the thing you describe. However at I-I pod at Gaia I have been able to this way participate in pretty high quality discussions. But then there is no free access to write there, even if everyone can read our discussions. The members are carefully selected through a recommendation process. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was Marx. Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes from his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. In the late 60's I was reading Freud and remember picking it up from there. Probably he was quoting Marx then. I have not read any books of Marx. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium
Islam was in many ways an advanced, and tolerant culture at the medieval age. That was probably based on the real improvements it brought to peopleâs lives. But since then Islam has got stuck. There has been an idea that if something is good, more of it is even better. This principle can get things really distorted, if you cannot correctly evaluate the factors that really contributed to the flourishing of the medieval Islam world. And since then the world around has been evolving. What at that time was advanced status for women in that culture, when looked at from modern world centric perspective, makes us perceiving women being in the position of slaves in many Islam nations. And this greatly contributes to poverty and violence in those societies. I have never read the Koran, but recently heard that prophet Muhammad married his friendâs daughter, when she was 9 years old in spite of her fatherâs resistance. Now I understand better why there has been in Iran demands to lower the age, when girls can get married, to 9 years! I think it is at present 13 years, although Iâm not quite sure. Even that means to us westerners pedophilia! Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that religion can be many things, good and bad. I also agree that the position of women in all of today's religions (that I know about) is questionable, especially Islam. But remember that when their prophet lived, he improved the status of women immeasurably. He gave them inheritance rights, which they had not had at the time and he gave them the right to say no to an arranged marriage. The custom of burkas did not come into use until his movement was co-opted after his death. There are some scholars who claim that he actually gave the leadership of his movement to Ayosha (spellings vary), who was an eighteen-year old girl at the time of his death. Obviously, the guys in the organization did not allow that to happen. The bottom line on him for me is that if you read his history carefully, you can see that his first wife, Hatice, who was quite a bit older than he was, was probably his guru. But, of course, that is not something that would fly in today's Islam. a --- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Long ago as a young adult I agreed with Freud in his saying:â Religion is opium to the peopleâ. That was what I saw: religion and its beliefs as a place to hide behind. I saw it being also a main source for hypocrisy, a stopper of inquiry and curiosity about life. It seemed to have a dangerous capacity to create a self-satisfied, numbing feeling of belonging, safety, being on the right side, giving a justification for condemning others, while belittling and hiding once own transgressions. No wonder religion felt as a truly filthy thing to me. Later I saw how religion has truly helped people in different kinds of anguish. I was also thinking that so many people throughout human history cannot have been completely wrong. Some important function religion has to have for humanity. After learning meditation I gradually came to the insight that certain forms of prayer are actually also functioning as meditation. And simultaneously I started to perceive that also meditating communities, which considered themselves to be much above ordinary religions, had belief systems, that were considered as ultimate, were not accepted to be questioned, and became again a kind of opium. In some aspects even the more advanced approaches seemed to create the very opposite to what they were advocating. Concerning mythic fundamental level of development, and lower, I feel I have started to understand, what might cause this pathology. People who have not gone through a true individualization process, are not really capable of being in dialogue with others. True others on their own right donât actually exist in that reality. The same is true internally. These people cannot be in a true dialogue with themselves. It is all about controlling, trying to control others, and also themselves. People who have evolved further know pretty well how inefficient a tool control is in truly working through oneâs shadows. If you want to feel good about yourself and see good results with controlling, hypocrisy, and focusing on the sinâs of others becomes a lucrative solution. Religions can have also incorporated in themselves, when looked at from a modern perspective, truly pathological values and beliefs, the most notable of these being the position of women. As I see it, the relationships at home are reflected directly in the functioning of societies. Christianity has in its old doctrines had a best respect for human rights that also includes women. And there has been also a respect
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hagen J. Holtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any form of religion therefore has to be banned as a public issue like preventing people from ingenuous touching radio-active material or negligent smoking in open halls . On the other hand, what someone privately believes, should still be his respected personal matter, because you cannot try to prevent someone from making up his personal mind, even if it might be objectively not tenable. The same way like children should have their right to believe in matters, which adults see through. Therefore such believes should be prevented as something a human being has to go through more or less. It is a legitimate part of his personal evolution and therefore on the other hand should get prevailed at any cost. But the moment someone tries to publically issue his believes in the very sense of what he holds to be true (as already nicely been defined recently in this list), there have to be well-acceptable objective criteria in order to get a public license for it. Hagen This is the principle that has already been followed with good results in Europe. In USA political decision making seems to be still somewhat mixed with obeying Godâs will according to religious beliefs. Someone making aloud such claims in Finland would make him/herself totally ridiculous. Political decisions are not made here in the name of God. The Islam world is fighting frantically against every effort to separate these sphereâs using as their weapons threatening, fear, and violence. Recently in Finland the Muslimâs demanded that they have to be allowed to follow in Finland their own Sharia law instead of Finnish law! We have had these Muslimâs only a short time. The first refugees arrived in the 90âs. Practically every time they publicly say something, they make themselves just ridiculous, and show that their capacity to formal operational thinking, or abstract conceptual thinking, is poor. They combine categories in a wrong way all the time. And this is not about belief systems. It is about where they are in their cognitive development. And I consider their beliefsystems to be the cause of their backwardness. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Religion as Opium
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its a fantastic tool to understanding how people come to religion. Why religion still exists in advanced societies. And how religion changes as people's life conditions vary. I would like to turn this around to: People's life conditions change, as their religious beliefs change or evolve. I have recently been actively participating in discussions in some Ken Wilber related forums, just because it provides a conceptual framework, that includes the spiraldynamics related understanding of human evolving in many different lines of intelligences, not just in the values line. This kind of framework makes discussions about e.g. spiritual issues much more sensible. Often people speak about their spiritual state experiences in totally different terms depending on their world view, cultural background etc. They are speaking about similar inner states, but still cannot understand each other. Years ago I participated on this forum on a discussion with 'no I'. It was quite frustrating as we didn't understand each other at all. Later it occurred to me that we had probably pretty similar inner state experiences but described them very differently. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Religion as Opium
Long ago as a young adult I agreed with Freud in his saying:â Religion is opium to the peopleâ. That was what I saw: religion and its beliefs as a place to hide behind. I saw it being also a main source for hypocrisy, a stopper of inquiry and curiosity about life. It seemed to have a dangerous capacity to create a self-satisfied, numbing feeling of belonging, safety, being on the right side, giving a justification for condemning others, while belittling and hiding once own transgressions. No wonder religion felt as a truly filthy thing to me. Later I saw how religion has truly helped people in different kinds of anguish. I was also thinking that so many people throughout human history cannot have been completely wrong. Some important function religion has to have for humanity. After learning meditation I gradually came to the insight that certain forms of prayer are actually also functioning as meditation. And simultaneously I started to perceive that also meditating communities, which considered themselves to be much above ordinary religions, had belief systems, that were considered as ultimate, were not accepted to be questioned, and became again a kind of opium. In some aspects even the more advanced approaches seemed to create the very opposite to what they were advocating. Concerning mythic fundamental level of development, and lower, I feel I have started to understand, what might cause this pathology. People who have not gone through a true individualization process, are not really capable of being in dialogue with others. True others on their own right donât actually exist in that reality. The same is true internally. These people cannot be in a true dialogue with themselves. It is all about controlling, trying to control others, and also themselves. People who have evolved further know pretty well how inefficient a tool control is in truly working through oneâs shadows. If you want to feel good about yourself and see good results with controlling, hypocrisy, and focusing on the sinâs of others becomes a lucrative solution. Religions can have also incorporated in themselves, when looked at from a modern perspective, truly pathological values and beliefs, the most notable of these being the position of women. As I see it, the relationships at home are reflected directly in the functioning of societies. Christianity has in its old doctrines had a best respect for human rights that also includes women. And there has been also a respect for truthful intellectual inquiry. On the other hand in Islam world the poor position of women has kept the whole area slowly evolving or even regressing. Religion and spirituality have the important function of a helping us to connect to our depth, or the collective depth and creating values to follow. But this area has also severe defects and pitfalls. The most severe of them is the intense fight against opening their own box of worms of ultimate truths to inquiry. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Letter to NPR re Commentary on Maharishi's Death
I have been surprised how much MMY's death has been in the newspapers here in Finland. The news was in the big nationwide Helsingin Sanomat in the net already 1 am on Wednesday 06. Feb. The next day I saw the news in two other newspapers I follow regularly. All of them were matter of fact, although focusing mainly on his relationship with the Beatles. Today in the local newspaper there was a beautiful picture from the funeral at Vlodrop. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Jim Greenfield: I just sent the following email to NPR re: their comments today. Re: Scott Simon's commentary on death of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. NPR took the easy way with shallow remarks about Maharishi, characteristic of the American press's coverage of just about everything. If you'd done ten minutes of research you might have found information more appropriate to cover the passing of a great spiritual leader. You might have mentioned the universities Maharishi founded on two continents, or the fascinating seminars he held with the world's leading intellectuals, including innumerable Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. involving profound discussions on the nature of the universe from perspectives ranging from astrophysics to Vedic philosophy. Or you might have mentioned his scholarship and books, or the millions of people who benefited from the healing, restorative effects of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation, as documented by hundreds of scientific studies at major medical schools, universities, and research institutes throughout the world. But instead you went with snide comments about how much enlightenment you can buy with $300 million, and with the Beatles' rumors about sexual impropriety even though you yourself mentioned that Paul McCartney and George Harrison later repudiated the shameful story. This is not the first time in history a great spiritual leader has been derided at the time of death. There was a Rabbi in Israel who was once mocked with a crown of thorns. Is that the precedent you wish to follow, Scott? Not much of an obituary. Jim Greenfield Transcendental Meditation Teacher 15105 SW 119th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 503-968-0499 HYPERLINK mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1267 - Release Date: 2/8/2008 8:12 PM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi drops the body
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 5, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: A man like that always picks a significant moment to die-- significant to those, that is, who are left behind. You can see this in the death of parents and grandparents also. The significance of the moment is not always immediately apparent, but it is there. Pretty cool synchronicity that Across the Universe was being sent out across the cosmos at the same time his consciousness left! Great music for the journey! Turn it up! This is interesting. A baby son, their first born, was born to my older son and his wife yesterday Feb 5, 2008 in the afternoon Finnish time. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi drops the body
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 5, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: A man like that always picks a significant moment to die-- significant to those, that is, who are left behind. You can see this in the death of parents and grandparents also. The significance of the moment is not always immediately apparent, but it is there. Pretty cool synchronicity that Across the Universe was being sent out across the cosmos at the same time his consciousness left! Great music for the journey! Turn it up! This is interesting. A baby son, their first born, was born to my older son and his wife yesterday Feb 5, 2008 in the afternoon Finnish time. Irmeli Was a north star, a manger, and some frankincense involved? Not those, but it was a special day in Finland, as two feasts coincided. This happens only once in 100 years. And the flags were up everywhere. Irmeli
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Hate 55%off FFL Posts by Three Posters. Give them time-outs?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone else sick of thus choking of FFL? If so, open your window and shout I'm not going to take in any longer. Or simple post it. I visit FFL only occasionally, and select my reading according to the titles and also by the poster. I appreciate many of the inputs of the frequent posters. If their postings style annoys me I skip reading them. This is the case in the ever lasting snapping between Judy and Barry. On the other hand the big number of posts makes it laborious to find those posts that would interest me. Apparently I cannot use the new system of following the threads effectively. For example for this thread I didn't easily find the starting post I'm now responding to. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes offensive only, when it is taken out of the context of the whole speech. The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel deeply hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about Christianity. It really depends who holds global power. Muslims feel under attack nowadays by Christians, so there is a strong tendency by Muslims to feel every slight, real or imagined, because it is the Christians who are in power. Those who would view this situation logically or dispassionately miss this point. There is a popular talk show host on TV in the USA, Dr. Phil McGraw, (Dr. Phil) who speaks about 'psychological sunburn'- a phenomenon whereby a person or group feel so upset about the practices of another, that even expressions that are not offensive, but that remind the upset group of abuse, are only dealt with by outbursts of violence and anger. The situation isn't helped any by those in the West who then point to this logically misplaced anger and declare the angry group as extremists and madmen. The pope was not pointing to a logically misplaced anger through choosing the quotatation, but wanting to open a discussion about the basic beliefs and structures between Islam and Christianity that differ in some essential features. It was an invitation to a dialogue. The muslims responded to it by misplaced anger and violence. Is the pope to be considered responsible for the reactions of the Muslims? Do we have to accept any kind of behavior from the Muslims just because we want to condescend them to mere poor incompetent victims with little capacity to more advanced moral reasoning than the principles of shame and revenge. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intellect
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, where does mind stop and intellect start? Any hard criteria? The mechanics of perception and discrimination that our intellect would LIKE us to believe in goes like this: sensory input comes in from the objective world, is registered by the mind and turned into thoughts, and the intellect objectively evaluates that input, dis- criminates, and makes intelligent decisions. But the mechanics of perception and discrimination that Maharishi laid out goes like this: first, we have a belief on the level of the heart, the faint feeling level, deeper than the intellect. That means that the heart has a feeling - an attraction or repulsion - then the whole rest of the individuality (the intellect, and its servants, the mind and senses) go out and FIND evidence to support, to validate, that belief. They ig- nore evidence that doesn't support that belief - that evidence, that sen- sory experience, that knowledge, that interpretation does not register. So it turns out that we're not objective at all. The intellect has been lying, and puffing up its own importance, by pretending to be objective and in charge, when really it's just a lackey for the heart. Irmeli: Intellect is not lying, we lie if we use it to cover up something. Intellect just IS as you point out in the end of your writing. However there are huge differences in our capacity to use the intellect. It is very helpful to be all the time aware that the intellect does not reveal to me the absolute truth, but is always coloured by my deep and often subconscious beliefs. When we have a deep personal belief, then even the strongest intellect will ignore logic and even ingore direct experience that invalidates that belief, and will use all of its skill to argue for the validity of that belief, and to find evidence to support that belief. Irmeli: There are huge differences in which degree different individuals ignore logic or misuse it. Some people apply wrong logic much more readily than others. Some even claim that their wrong use of logic is their deeper intuition and therefore represents a deeper truth. People with strong intellect don't easily ignore logic in that way, but also their use of logic and intellect is coloured by their deep beliefs. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the USA think? Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen as just the poor victims. I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a culture and religion in deep crisis. Something developmental arrest there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the level people in Europe had in medieval times. I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world, when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as that of Finland's. Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale. In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core of the problem. Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral reasoning among the people in Europe. He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements. He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in scientific thinking. Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about. His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm not a Christian. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 17, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Irmeli Mattsson wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: The current conflict continues as long as the West thinks that by killing enough of the third world people, we can force the rest into submission and servitude. It isn't working, nor will it. Is this really how the majority of people and the politicians in the USA think? OF course not. What do you think? A few lunatics on the right do, and unfortunately they've cheated and bullied their way into power. It won't last, it never does. Certainly not in Europe and by no means in Finland. Here I feel we are too understanding of everything people in the Muslim world do and we don't dare to criticize their values and moral thinking. They are seen as just the poor victims. Not a particularly healthy attitude. I don't think they are in the first place victims. I think they are a culture and religion in deep crisis. Something developmental arrest there must be, when big parts of people live in deep poverty in spite of the huge oil riches, and their attitudes and values are on the level people in Europe had in medieval times. Yes, it's pathetic and a huge waste of resources, both material and intellectual. I think in 2001 the gross national product of the whole Arab world, when the oil incomes where reduced, was as big as that of Finland's. Finland has 5 million inhabitants. I find that very telltale. In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core of the problem. Interesting is also his main theme of the speech that Chistianity has helped in the development of reasonable communication, and moral reasoning among the people in Europe. He also says that he appreciates highly science and its achievements. He is only critical about the narrow use of reason and intellect in scientific thinking. Which I think almost all spiritually inclined people can agree about. His courageous quotation was good also in that sense that it made me and many others read his speech, that I found to be fine. I have never before read a speech by a pope, and got very positively surprised. I'm not a Christian. Now I'm interested in reading it too. Know where I can find it? Here:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html Sal To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip In my opinion the pope addresses this issue in the speech relatively tactfully by a quotation of the issue that he sees to be at the core of the problem. Just so we know what we're talking about here, this is the quotation that has angered Muslims (from an AP report on Yahoo! News): In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam. 'The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,' the pope said. 'He said, I quote, Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' Whatever the truth of the last part of the sentence (and it's not quite the slam-dunk some seem to think), it's the first part that is so offensive to Muslims: the only new things Muhammad brought were evil and inhuman. It's not hard to grasp why that has aroused such fury. Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non- Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction to hate one's father and mother! The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate* the offensive part of the quote. He could have made his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd said to start with that he didn't condone the first part. It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear the rest of what he said dispassionately. And he *still* hasn't apologized for it. All he's said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by it. I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes offensive only, when it is taken out of the context of the whole speech. The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel deeply hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about Christianity. Instead the Christians would have tried to defend their own view by answering to questions of the emperor and trying to refute his claims. We have also to remember what kind of audience this speech was given to. The pope is a former professor of theology, and he was invited to speak at the University of Regensburg. It is a scholarly speach for other scholars. Why do the muslims feel the need to control even what can be expressed in the academia of a western country? Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Imagine the wrath of Christians if a non- Christian were to say the only new things Jesus brought were evil and inhuman, citing, say, Jesus' instruction to hate one's father and mother! The big problem was that the pope *did not repudiate* the offensive part of the quote. He could have made his point about violent jihad just as well if he'd said to start with that he didn't condone the first part. It's too bad that slip (among others, but that was the worst) was so inflammatory that it was hard to hear the rest of what he said dispassionately. And he *still* hasn't apologized for it. All he's said is that he was sorry Muslims were offended by it. I just cannot see the speech as offensive. The quotation becomes offensive only, when it is taken out of the context of the whole speech. The pope is quoting a Christian Byzantine Emperor, who is trying to challenge an educated Persian by his claims and questions. I have very difficult to imagine that the Christians would feel deeply hurt and offended had the claim been made by a muslim about Christianity. Instead the Christians would have tried to defend their own view by answering to questions of the emperor and trying to refute his claims. Some might; others would be outraged. And bear in mind that there's no one in Islam equivalent to the pope, with his power and influence and international status as a religious leader. We have also to remember what kind of audience this speech was given to. The pope is a former professor of theology, and he was invited to speak at the University of Regensburg. It is a scholarly speach for other scholars. Why do the muslims feel the need to control even what can be expressed in the academia of a western country? With his prominence as a public figure, the pope can't just give a scholarly speech for other scholars and expect it to stay within that context. Whatever he says is going to be widely reported and taken to be the official view of the Roman Catholic Church. Whether the quote was taken out of context or not, he should have known better than to use it without explicitly saying it didn't reflect his own views. That he did not do so makes him, at the very least, insensitive. That's just Public Relations 101. I think he made a courageous and respectful gesture by a little bit challenging the Muslims and inviting them to a deep and serious discussion. I feel rather frustrated about the attitude of the press here in Finland. The Muslims are here seen as the poor oppressed victims of the west. Their actions are not criticized. However I suspect that the deeper motivator of this kind of behaviour is a fear of the consequences of possible revenge in the form of terrorism. As long as the Muslims can control our behaviour and thinking by the threat of terrorism they will increasingly use that weapon. The pope ends his speech by a sincere invitation to dialogue: Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God, said Manuel II , according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to the Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. It was an invitation to a deep dialogue by expressing some challenging questions about Islam. I think we need more this kind of approach instead of warfare, or trying to close our eyes and pretend that there are no problems ,or to see all the problems being caused by the west as the press does in Finland. Actually by seeing only the West as a responsible part in this conflict Muslim hides an extremely condescending attitude towards the Muslims, as if they were totally lacking the capacity to responsible, reasonable actions on their own, lowering them in a way to the same level with animals. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] The Pope's speech on Faith and reason
The Pope's recent speech the Muslims feel so agitated about is really very good. It is about the old historical connection Christianity in its essence has to reason due to strong Hellenistic influences from the times of the inception of Christianity. He also mentions that this adherence to reason has not always been a lived reality in Christianity especially during the Middle Ages. He states that Europe has got moulded to what it is nowadays under a strong influence of a Christian religion that sees God revealing himself as logos. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, declares Evangelist John. In Islam the understanding the idea of likeness between our reason and that of God's is missing. There God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of true and good are not an authentic mirror of God. The link: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question on suitability of experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablus108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: From the idea that enlightened states of consciousness are STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, complete with physiological styles of functioning. I'm curious, is there any observation of people losing their enlightened brainwave pattern, when they get old and senile, and hence also having lost their TMO style enlightenment. People's brainfuctioning generally deteriorate, when they get old. MMY's behavior has for some time shown clear signs of his deteroriating brainfunctioning (which is of course natural considering his respectably high age). Irmeli And from where have you cooked up this rubbish ? Could you explain to me in which way my questions are rubbish? What I see around me is that people's brainfuctioning deteriorates generally deteriorates when they get older. I think it is also a scientifically proven fact. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question on suitability of experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: From the idea that enlightened states of consciousness are STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, complete with physiological styles of functioning. I'm curious, is there any observation of people losing their enlightened brainwave pattern, when they get old and senile, and hence also having lost their TMO style enlightenment. People's brainfuctioning generally deteriorate, when they get old. MMY's behavior has for some time shown clear signs of his deteroriating brainfunctioning (which is of course natural considering his respectably high age). Irmeli Actually, brain-functioning doesn't deteriorate all that much just because you get old, and MMY doesn't show any signs of a stroke that I can see. Would you ask if people lose the ability to sleep or dream just because they got old? People don't lose their ability to dream, but many other functions deteriorate with aging. People get more sleep disturbances, they have more difficult to keep their balance, when moving. Balance keeping is a demanding function of coordination in the brain. Mental problems increase with aging often in the form of irrational fears and mild paranoia. If you asked a pathologist, he would definitely claim that there is clear age related deterioration happening in the brain, even if there may appear new structures also. I see a certain kind of deterioration in myself even if I'm only 55. I tend to forget names more easily now. I also have to put my appointments and many tasks on calendar to be sure to remember them on time. When younger I remembered all my appointments easily without any calendar. But I can see improvement also in some other areas. MMY's very weird behaviour and his many irrational claims and stumbling in his speaking I have considered to be a result from weaker brain functioning that is very common in people of his age. I don't claim his behaviour to be a result of a massive stroke. Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question on suitability of experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: From the idea that enlightened states of consciousness are STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, complete with physiological styles of functioning. I'm curious, is there any observation of people losing their enlightened brainwave pattern, when they get old and senile, and hence also having lost their TMO style enlightenment. People's brainfuctioning generally deteriorate, when they get old. MMY's behavior has for some time shown clear signs of his deteroriating brainfunctioning (which is of course natural considering his respectably high age). Irmeli Actually, brain-functioning doesn't deteriorate all that much just because you get old, and MMY doesn't show any signs of a stroke that I can see. Would you ask if people lose the ability to sleep or dream just because they got old? People don't lose their ability to dream, but many other functions deteriorate with aging. People get more sleep disturbances, they have more difficult to keep their balance, when moving. Balance keeping is a demanding function of coordination in the brain. Mental problems increase with aging often in the form of irrational fears and mild paranoia. If you asked a pathologist, he would definitely claim that there is clear age related deterioration happening in the brain, even if there may appear new structures also. I see a certain kind of deterioration in myself even if I'm only 55. I tend to forget names more easily now. I also have to put my appointments and many tasks on calendar to be sure to remember them on time. When younger I remembered all my appointments easily without any calendar. But I can see improvement also in some other areas. MMY's very weird behaviour and his many irrational claims and stumbling in his speaking I have considered to be a result from weaker brain functioning that is very common in people of his age. I don't claim his behaviour to be a result of a massive stroke. Without a massive stroke, I see no reason to assume he's become unenlightened due to age, and I'm not sure that even that would do it. States of consciousness (and I suspect that at least CC and certainly TC, qualify as unqiue states of consciousness) are pretty hard to get rid of. 89 year old (90?) enlightened sages may be a little forgetful and irritable, but they're still enlightened sages, I think. I agree, but do their brainwave scans still qualify for the TMO style enlightenment? Has any research been made on this issue? Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Question on suitability of experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer groups@ wrote: on 8/21/06 3:11 PM, sparaig at sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: My prediction is that anyone who gets on the enlightened list will be banned from future courses. MMY's organization is not built for people who claim to have reached the goal. The only one beard in the room rule still applies. Am I wrong? That's why Fred Travis has been able to publish physiological studies on people who reported witnessing 24/7 for years on end: they're afraid to step forward... Fred was very condescending and dismissive of an Awake friend of mine whose brain waves didn¹t happen to match Fred¹s expectations. Where did TMO folks get the idea that being awake/enlightened is a measurable, dualistic phenomenon? From the idea that enlightened states of consciousness are STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, complete with physiological styles of functioning. I'm curious, is there any observation of people losing their enlightened brainwave pattern, when they get old and senile, and hence also having lost their TMO style enlightenment. People's brainfuctioning generally deteriorate, when they get old. MMY's behavior has for some time shown clear signs of his deteroriating brainfunctioning (which is of course natural considering his respectably high age). Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's name//now - The threat of Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Well, I may not be enlightened, but due to Maharishi's techniques I have had experiences of the universe that I could not possibly have through any other way that I know of(except maybe brain damaging drugs). And, my direct experience, entirely as a result of his techniques, is that the world we play in is like flotsam floating on a vast ocean of very intensified bliss energy. It is so powerful, and it is just below the surface of things, and it threatens to burst into, and overflow our universe at any time. Such an event would be so powerful that everyone would be transformed in a matter of minutes. It would be like the magma under the surface of the Earth, bursting out and flowing all over the surface...only it would not be fire, but bliss. I believe this cataclysm is only years, maybe a few decades away, at most. This is not what I learned from Maharishi, but my direct and very common experience. It is physical, spiritual, and real. OffWorld You experience a lot of bliss and ascribe it to be possible only through the techniques that MMY has brought out, mainly because those techniques are the only ones you have seriously dedicated yourself to practise. I too experience a lot of bliss in a similar way that you describe, but I don't ascribe it solely due to the basic very simple TM technique that is the only technique I have learned through the TMO and only practised for half a year, as it was taught. Most people who have learned this simple technique have benefited very little from it. And you go so far as to violate a solemn promise you made just so you can teach something that people can benefit very little from? BTW, how do you know that people have benefited very little from it? When MMY came to the west, he didn't know that most people don't benefit from it ? 95% of those people, whom I persuaded to start TM, didn't experience anything they considered special and important for themselves and dropped the technique very soon. So it cannot be just the technique. For some reason you give MMY credit for something much bigger in which bringing out some simple techniques plays just a minor role. Why? Why do you say that this is so anyway? Cannot you understand what I have written? But MMY's role for the values you have adopted is much bigger through the belief system you have adopted from him. That is: all we need is enough bliss to transform and enlighten the whole world. The TMO has been trying to force it to happen. Trying to force one's belief system to become reality is called fundamentalism. But it won't become reality, because reality doesn't obey you. In there being more bliss now many different sources have been playing an important role. The TMO is just one of them. According to my understanding an enlightened person could give appreciation to them all. Bliss solving all the problems is a belief of your's and MMY's, not the reality. And trying to force more bliss to appear has got the TMO to resort to the principle `end justify means'. This principle usually goes together with forcing and manipulation, and often causes more harm than good. Bliss is not all that is needed to transform the world. It is one ingredient, but not sufficient alone. Sure it is. Bliss is based on the functioning of the nervous system. Change the nervous system in the right way and you transform a person. Transform enough people and you transform the world, whether or not the Maharishi Effect works or not. Sure. But by concentrating to create bliss and being oblivious to other important factors in the functioning of human nervous system, doesn't make this kind of transformation to appear. Seeing it being all that is needed is MMY's biggest fallacy. It has justified him dishonest behaviour, because for him how his mind operates doesn't matter, only bliss matters. His thinking has probably gone in the following routes: Because I'm bringing to the world this absolute bliss, I'm beyond the karmic consequences of my gross level behaviour. It is allowed for me just to make a powerful impression and manipulate people following me. When the bliss transforms the world, I too will be automatically purified.What I now do behind the curtains doesn't really matter. Maybe not on the big cosmic scale. He is too small a speck there. But for his personal evolution it certainly does, and karma he cannot escape.Accepting one's defects and being open with them is in itself transformative. Pretending to be something one is not, even if it happens in the name of a higher good, is degenerative. This is easy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's name//now - The threat of Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: When I read your responses, I get now, as I have got earlier too the impression, that you work very hard internally, to not to understand and to distort, what people, who don't agree with your thinking, write. Apparently you do this with good conscience, because in your world it is only bliss that matters. Are you happy with the results this internal methodology has created in your life? Are you happy? Or maybe it doesn't matter for you. Just simple bliss matters. Not being happy can be solved eating Prozac? For me, Prozac helps counter the effects of the 3-year allergy attack I suffered a few years ago. And ALL of my doctors, counselors and whatnot agree that TM is essential to my health and well-being. I agree with you here. And I apologize. I was rude in my comment here. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's name//now - The threat of Bliss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I may not be enlightened, but due to Maharishi's techniques I have had experiences of the universe that I could not possibly have through any other way that I know of(except maybe brain damaging drugs). And, my direct experience, entirely as a result of his techniques, is that the world we play in is like flotsam floating on a vast ocean of very intensified bliss energy. It is so powerful, and it is just below the surface of things, and it threatens to burst into, and overflow our universe at any time. Such an event would be so powerful that everyone would be transformed in a matter of minutes. It would be like the magma under the surface of the Earth, bursting out and flowing all over the surface...only it would not be fire, but bliss. I believe this cataclysm is only years, maybe a few decades away, at most. This is not what I learned from Maharishi, but my direct and very common experience. It is physical, spiritual, and real. OffWorld You experience a lot of bliss and ascribe it to be possible only through the techniques that MMY has brought out, mainly because those techniques are the only ones you have seriously dedicated yourself to practise. I too experience a lot of bliss in a similar way that you describe, but I don't ascribe it solely due to the basic very simple TM technique that is the only technique I have learned through the TMO and only practised for half a year, as it was taught. Most people who have learned this simple technique have benefited very little from it. So it cannot be just the technique. For some reason you give MMY credit for something much bigger in which bringing out some simple techniques plays just a minor role. Why? But MMY's role for the values you have adopted is much bigger through the belief system you have adopted from him. That is: all we need is enough bliss to transform and enlighten the whole world. The TMO has been trying to force it to happen. Trying to force one's belief system to become reality is called fundamentalism. But it won't become reality, because reality doesn't obey you. In there being more bliss now many different sources have been playing an important role. The TMO is just one of them. According to my understanding an enlightened person could give appreciation to them all. Bliss solving all the problems is a belief of your's and MMY's, not the reality. And trying to force more bliss to appear has got the TMO to resort to the principle `end justify means'. This principle usually goes together with forcing and manipulation, and often causes more harm than good. Bliss is not all that is needed to transform the world. It is one ingredient, but not sufficient alone. Seeing it being all that is needed is MMY's biggest fallacy. It has justified him dishonest behaviour, because for him how his mind operates doesn't matter, only bliss matters. His thinking has probably gone in the following routes: Because I'm bringing to the world this absolute bliss, I'm beyond the karmic consequences of my gross level behaviour. It is allowed for me just to make a powerful impression and manipulate people following me. When the bliss transforms the world, I too will be automatically purified.What I now do behind the curtains doesn't really matter. Maybe not on the big cosmic scale. He is too small a speck there. But for his personal evolution it certainly does, and karma he cannot escape.Accepting one's defects and being open with them is in itself transformative. Pretending to be something one is not, even if it happens in the name of a higher good, is degenerative. This is easy to see to be true also for MMY. He has been a messenger boy and brought something important to the west, as have many other teachers. And many people have benefited from his teachings in spite of its weaknesses. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Again, I'd suggest that what you're calling hair- splitting is in fact analysis of the facts, premises, assumptions, and logic of a particular conclusion. If these are not sound, the conclusion itself has no merit. It appears that you prefer to deal only with the conclusions without worrying about whether what the conclusions are based on has any validity. I didn't answer your first post because I partly did answer your questions in my respond to your other post. You responded to all my posts *except* the most recent one (the one right before the P.S. post). I have limited time available to write here. Sorry! Uh-huh. So you chose to spend your limited time responding to my P.S. post at length instead of to the substantive one. To your questions in this post I have no time or interest to answer. I don't understand your reasoning or as I understand them I see you resorting to very crooked thinking. Of course it possible that I'm too stupid to understand the subtle purity and ethic of your reasoning. So I let it be with you. One more time: You might want to ask yourself why you feel the need to attack me personally when my previous posts were entirely polite and made no personal remarks about you. Could it be because you have the sense that a challenge to your views, no matter how rational, is equivalent to a personal attack? I have observed that you have not much criticized my posts. Why not, if you don't like them ? I have only occasionally read your posts and felt them to be quite weary, because of your style of diverting attention away by picking up some minor unessential details. When I observed you did the same to me in a quite gross and transparent way, by taking one sentence from MMY's talk, that only vaguely possibly was not in line with the overall theme of the talk and you started bombarding me with it, quoting only that sentence and starting to claim that I misinterpreted MMY. This is no challenge to my views. I just feel angry, when people use these kinds of tricks in communication. Maybe I don't get angry, when a person does this just once, but when she does it repeatedly, I do. And my reasoning does not go like, if you don't criticize me, I don't criticize you. My criticism is more based on issues, styles of communication etc. Although I may not criticize somebody's writing because, I judge that person to be a hopeless case, meaning she cannot benefit from the criticism. And I don't understand criticism to be a harmful attack. If you see a person to behave in less constructive ways, and out of indifference don't tell her about it, I consider that to be harmful behaviour. And I would appreciate it, if you could really challenge my views. I understand, that I have my blind spots, and I can only start to perceive them by the help of others. And I'm sorry that I cannot discuss with you more, because I'm just now very busy with my work. At the weekend I'm leaving for two weeks holiday abroad. Before it I have to finish many tasks and also find time to pack etc. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip One more time: You might want to ask yourself why you feel the need to attack me personally when my previous posts were entirely polite and made no personal remarks about you. Could it be because you have the sense that a challenge to your views, no matter how rational, is equivalent to a personal attack? I have observed that you have not much criticized my posts. Why not, if you don't like them ? Where did I say I didn't like your posts?? I usually find your posts pretty interesting. I happened to disagree with you on this one point about MMY being senile. How do you transform that into my not liking your posts in general? If you'll recall, Irmeli, this exchange started when I agreed with Jim's comment to you that he didn't think MMY was senile. You responded to my post by saying you didn't see how anyone with their full mental faculties could take MMY seriously but that you supposed it was possible if the person saw MMY as their guru. In other words, your very first response to me was a none-too-subtle ad hominem, implying that the only reason I said I didn't think he was senile was because, as a devotee, I was blind to his faults. Of course, I'm *not* a devotee, and I see plenty of MMY's faults; I just don't happen to think he's senile. But you couldn't deal with my comment by simply taking it as another point of view; you had to dismiss it as invalid by suggesting I was blind to his purported senility because I was a TB. I ignored this attack and responded by addressing your one substantive point, which seemed to be that the fact that he says nutty things meant his mental capacities were in decline. I pointed out that people who are obviously in full possession of their mental capacities can say nutty things too; the latter isn't necessarily an indication of the former. You replied by saying that the way he grouped things together in his remarks on caste showed he was either an uncivilized Hindu fundamentalist or mildly retarded. And you *again* leveled the ad hominem at me, saying I'd perceive these fallacies if it was someone other than MMY who had come up with them. You really need to review the exchange. I repeatedly addressed your *substantive* points-- your reasons for thinking MMY is senile--and you did attempt to defend those points, but then you issued your rant on how I was nitpicking and that I must be doing so because I couldn't address your conclusion, as if addressing your reasons for your conclusion somehow wasn't kosher, and that I was only doing that because I didn't want to confront that conclusion. That makes no sense, Irmeli. I have only occasionally read your posts and felt them to be quite weary, because of your style of diverting attention away by picking up some minor unessential details. I was addressing the reasons you were giving for your conclusion that MMY was senile, for goodness' sake! Why on earth would you consider them minor inessential details and diverting attention away? When I observed you did the same to me in a quite gross and transparent way, by taking one sentence from MMY's talk, that only vaguely possibly was not in line with the overall theme of the talk and you started bombarding me with it, quoting only that sentence and starting to claim that I misinterpreted MMY. I did not bombard you with it. I pointed it out once in a different thread some time back. You didn't respond at that time. Then I mentioned it once in this exchange, and again you didn't respond, so I repeated it once. But I mentioned it only as a side point; it was really a different discussion than the one about whether he's senile or not that went back to things he'd said much earlier about caste. I didn't start to claim that you had misinterpreted MMY. To the contrary, I said you might very well be right in your interpretation of that one remark of his. I just suggested that there was another possible interpretation. This is no challenge to my views. Right, it was a different discussion entirely. The views I was challenging were your views on MMY being senile. I just feel angry, when people use these kinds of tricks in communication. Maybe I don't get angry, when a person does this just once, but when she does it repeatedly, I do. No tricks, Irmeli, sorry. You didn't like being challenged on your view that MMY is senile. If there's a trick here, it's *your* trick of trying to divert the discussion of MMY's mental faculties into one about my purported faults. And my reasoning does not go like, if you don't criticize me, I don't criticize you. You *attacked* me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip P.S.When I read your posts I have quite often got the impression that you excersice hairsplitting to divert attention away from the main theme or the main problem the poster is successfully presenting. When you cannot disprove the claims of the poster, you start hairsplitting with unessential details. This happens possibly because you have a preset agenda to defend, not because you wouldn't understand. You cannot allow any bigger cracks to your aim, just small ones so you can keep people perceiving you with some credibility. You do understand, but you are not in a position to be able to freely look at phenomenon and investigate ideas and claims with an open mind, which could lead to conclusions not fitting to your preset goal. P.S.: Irmeli, you might want to think about why you felt the need to launch an ad hominem attack at me when my responses to you contained no ad hominem at all. I have not the slightest idea what ad hominem means. I checked my dictionary of foreign words and the closest item there was ad honorem, but I suppose you don't mean it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem See in particular under the headings Ad Hominem Abusive and Ad Hominem Circumstantial. Why you got the rant was because I felt you were resorting to hair-splitting with my post to divert attention away from the essentials of my criticism. Yes, you said that already. And I responded that I thought you were resorting to ad hominem to divert attention away from the fact that your criticism didn't hold up when its premises were examined. That you've chosen to reply *only* to my P.S. rather than the post in which I continued to address those premises suggests that my conjecture was right on target. The sentence you picked up form MMY:s talk was not in line with the spirit of the talk for caste system in general. Yes, you said that already. And I pointed out that I cited that sentence *because* it was not in line with your *assumptions* about the spirit of the rest of what he had said. I suggested that this one sentence *might* throw a different light on what he said. Did you really read my first comment on the talk? I state my claim in different words, maybe you will better get it. No, Irmeli, I got it the first time Perhaps you didn't really read my replies, because I directly addressed your points. I'm not going to repeat what I said, since you apparently weren't able to respond to my most recent reply in our exchange. snip I also criticized you because I have generally got quite weary of your hair-splitting responds to many other posters here. This has lead to the situation that I don't read your posts. You are intelligent and have a lot of deep understanding and insight. Without hair-splitting you could do much better. Again, I'd suggest that what you're calling hair- splitting is in fact analysis of the facts, premises, assumptions, and logic of a particular conclusion. If these are not sound, the conclusion itself has no merit. It appears that you prefer to deal only with the conclusions without worrying about whether what the conclusions are based on has any validity. I didn't answer your first post because I partly did answer your questions in my respond to your other post. I have limited time available to write here. Sorry! To your questions in this post I have no time or interest to answer. I don't understand your reasoning or as I understand them I see you resorting to very crooked thinking. Of course it possible that I'm too stupid to understand the subtle purity and ethic of your reasoning. So I let it be with you. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Judy:I can think of quite a few people that I don't understand how anyone with their full mental faculties could take seriously, whom no one accuses of regressing in their mental capacities, let alone becoming senile. One doesn't have to be mentally incompetent to spout nonsense. *I* don't take a lot of what MMY says seriously, but I don't assume that means he's regressed in his mental capacities. Those are really two different issues with different symptoms. Irmeli:As the title of this thread refers to I commented MMY:s reasoning around the concept caste. If I read that kind of text not knowing whose it is, I would very spontaneously think that the person is either an uncivilized Hindu fundamentalist, or the person to be mildly retarded in his/her mental capacities. There were too many inconsistencies in the text. Concepts were put in groups where they don't belong. People's intelligence is tested mainly how they can place items in correct groups. I think that you would also perceive these fallacies, if you didn't know the text was MMY's, or at the latest, when the Hindu concepts where replaced by let's say communist or Muslim slogans. Judy:What makes you think I don't perceive these fallacies? I said explicitly that I don't take a lot of what MMY says seriously. Why would you assume his comments on caste were among the things he's said that I take seriously? However, I think your primitive Hindu fundamentalist/ mildly retarded in his mental faculties is a false dichotomy; and I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that because he doesn't put things in groups the same way you would, therefore his intelligence is failing. Irmeli: These categories or groups cannot be formed arbitrarily as it suits you.For perceiving them correctly intelligence is needed. It is as if you claimed having created your own mathematics, when when you cannot count correctly. MMY's claims are like hydrogen atoms and skin cells belong to the same category.They don't. Hydrogen atoms belong to the group atoms and skin cells to the group cells. They are quite different phenomenon on the level of complexity. Atoms are a subgroup of cells several hierarchies beneath. I would also ask again what you think he meant when he said he wanted to do away with castes entirely. Irmeli:You take here just one sentence from from a confused talk. The main theme in the talk is however: Without caste there will be hodgepogdge. Caste is everywhere, it is a natural pehenomenon. When MMY says: We want to eliminate caste ,I understand him to mean: People want to eliminate caste and then he continues explaining why it will never work. Irmeli: Also the other thread here, where MMY's press conference behaviour was discussed, is rather revealing. Try yourself to respond to a person, who does questions to you, as MMY does, and observe how people around you start to perceive you. Occasional slip-up is understandable. We all have our bad days. But when it is a repeating pattern, other conclusions have to be made. Judy:You assume that his goal is to have the reporters think well of him, and that therefore because he hasn't managed to do so, it must be because his mental faculties are failing. But I'm not at all sure that's what his goal is. Irmeli: Why otherwise would he have press-conferences. If he makes a fool of himself, how can people appreciate his message. It has been of utmost importance for MMY to be seen as a great guru, to whom world's leaders come to ask solutions to their problems. He has used manipulation, lies and exaggerations to achieve this dream of his. And the result is that he has got a very poor reputation. I want to emphasize here the word SEEN. If world peace would appear now, he would immediately claim ownership of that peace, even if his role in creating the peace were a minor one. Such is his nature. And it is OK, he serves as he is many important purposes. Nature's goal with him has been already for a while to make a fool of him. It most probably is not his conscious goal, rather his subconscious goal. On a very subtle level he however has succeeded with the task that was given to him. And that is the most essential thing, and he can be proud of that. We should not mix with each other two different levels of reality. P.S.When I read your posts I have quite often got the impression that you excersice hairsplitting to divert attention away from the main theme or the main problem the poster is successfully presenting. When you cannot disprove the claims of the poster, you start hairsplitting with unessential details. This happens possibly because you have a preset agenda to defend
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip P.S.When I read your posts I have quite often got the impression that you excersice hairsplitting to divert attention away from the main theme or the main problem the poster is successfully presenting. When you cannot disprove the claims of the poster, you start hairsplitting with unessential details. This happens possibly because you have a preset agenda to defend, not because you wouldn't understand. You cannot allow any bigger cracks to your aim, just small ones so you can keep people perceiving you with some credibility. You do understand, but you are not in a position to be able to freely look at phenomenon and investigate ideas and claims with an open mind, which could lead to conclusions not fitting to your preset goal. P.S.: Irmeli, you might want to think about why you felt the need to launch an ad hominem attack at me when my responses to you contained no ad hominem at all. I have not the slightest idea what ad hominem means. I checked my dictionary of foreign words and the closest item there was ad honorem, but I suppose you don't mean it. Why you got the rant was because I felt you were resorting to hair-splitting with my post to divert attention away from the essentials of my criticism. The sentence you picked up form MMY:s talk was not in line with the spirit of the talk for caste system in general. Did you really read my first comment on the talk? I state my claim in different words, maybe you will better get it. In the talk MMY's claims that castes are unavoidable because it is how nature works. Nobody can make or unmake caste system. Mango is one caste. Apple is one caste. You cannot unmake caste system, similarly as you cannot unmake different fruits to appear. He makes many wrong simplifications and generalizations in the talk. And that leads him to the wrong conclusion, that caste system is as inevitable as it is inevitable that mangos and apples are different fruit. But caste system can be unmade and it will when the society in India evolves. Wrong categorizing leads him to wrong conclusions. Categorizing and grouping can be made of course in many ways, but certain rules must be obeyed just as in mathematics. People's intelligence is often tested by asking them to place items in alternative groups. Only one is correct. I also criticized you because I have generally got quite weary of your hair-splitting responds to many other posters here. This has lead to the situation that I don't read your posts. You are intelligent and have a lot of deep understanding and insight. Without hair-splitting you could do much better. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding caste, Maharishi said at Amherst in 1971 that he opposed interracial marriage because the best qualities of both races are lost in the offspring. Also, he is alleged to have opposed the geographic intermingling of races, when it was brought to his attention that this was sometimes a point of tension in the US (e.g., segregation issues). *** Caste in India is a rigid system of social classes based on birth. You can see interracial marriages to be problematic for other reasons than because they are frobidden in Indian caste system. When people from different cultural backgrounds marry more challenges are to be expected than usual. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danielou points out that a society who bases education and training for jobs on IQ testing are essentially already recognizing and recreating a new caste system based on an individuals innate skills and karma. *** This is not an Indian caste system. I quote what I have written earlier here on this topic: Caste in India is a rigid system of social classes based on birth. This rigidity brings with it awful, unnatural tensions. All children are not born with the same inclinations and capacities as their parents. Societies in which there are no rigid caste systems are doing much better than those, which have it. Caste can be undone. On the other hand hierarchies and differentiations cannot be undone. They form a pillar of a well functioning society. In modern societies hierarchies are more and more based on competence and capacity to take responsibility. MMY uses apparently the concept caste for hierarchies and for the different roles people have in society. And the he proceeds to announce that the rigid caste system is inevitable natural law. It is not. But hierarchies and specializations seem to be crucial to a society. And as societies evolve we are getting away from suppressive dominator hierarchies. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to have your mind blown in regards to why democracy is an aberration and how the caste system reflects the real natural condition of society, you should read this book. From this POV, the idea that all people are created equal is one of the greatest lies ever perpetuated on human society. Higher education or education in domains which potentially could cause great harm to society should only be given to those with innate and excellent moral qualities. History has already proved this kind of reasoning wrong. That people are not created equal is probably true, but not the idea that education should not be given to all people. Societies were a lot of people are illiterate or have poor education are left behind, suppressive, and often violent. Finland's school system is considered to be one of the best in the world by its results. Here the weaker students get a lot of support, not necessarily the talented ones. We concentrate less on spurring talented students. The resources are directed for everyone being literate and getting a vocational training. If you are under 25 and you are jobless, you lose your unemployment benefit, if you don't engage yourself in some training program. Giving everyone a chance in life, and making even the weaker individuals feel that they are accepted and useful and important members of societies is the best prevention of harmful tendencies. Also democracy works much better, when people in general are well educated. Good educations provides better means of making one's own judgements. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Love Chooses You (was Re: Illusion of individuality; labels; true bhakti; the s
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Almost always, when I write an essay to this list, I get private e-mails thanking me, or expressing how it was useful to them, or asking deep questions. Many times they say that they don't write to this list because of the rough atmosphere here, because of the fear of being attacked or ridiculed or made fun of, because they don't want to expose their tender feelings to that kind of response. I don't even visit lists, which atmosphere I don't like. I suppose these people feel attracted to the rough atmosphere here even if they are afraid of getting exposed, if they would write themselves. I still I wonder why they are afraid of thanking you publicly? I have never observed that my honest accounts, and exposing my personal feelings, had gotten ridiculed here. Questioned sometimes, but mostly in good spirit. So I applaud you for having the courage to speak your truth here, for all to see. You are great. And no one ridiculed Jim for doing that. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip MMY says here: Those who do not know, they can say anything. Like a mad man, they can say anything. I think he is by that statement subconsciously describing himself. MMY has been successful in surrounding himself with yes-men. That success has however created a situation were he can get no critical assessment and he is totally free to publicly humiliate himself, when he clearly is getting old and senile. Usually the nearest people protect the elderly person from this kind of humiliation. I guess MMY has no one near him, who really cares about him. Irmeli Funny how two people hearing, or reading the same thing can have completely opposite points of view. I find this latest transcript refreshing in that MMY is lucid and honest with his remarks. No signs of senility that I see. Yes it is very informative to observe. I remember myself sitting as a child on a rock and looking at the blue sky and wondering if other people saw the blue sky as I saw it. I was not sure then but tentatively I came to the conclusion that they don't. This fact is very challenging , when it comes to constructive communication and interaction between people, who see differently. World peace would be ours if we collectively mastered that skill. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip he clearly is getting old and senile. Usually the nearest people protect the elderly person from this kind of humiliation. I guess MMY has no one near him, who really cares about him. Irmeli Funny how two people hearing, or reading the same thing can have completely opposite points of view. I find this latest transcript refreshing in that MMY is lucid and honest with his remarks. No signs of senility that I see. I think he may be somewhat less focused in his responses than he has been in the past, but I don't see any signs of senility either, certainly not enough to warrant protecting him from humiliation. Possibly not advanced senility, but clear regression in his mental capacities. Of course I read only those talks by him that appear here at FFL. It is possible that only his worst goofs get here. I quite honestly have difficulties to understand how anyone in full mental faculties could take him seriously. I guess, when it comes to someone perceiving him as one's guru, even that kind of thing becomes possible. And I do respect people's devotion. FFL just is a place were people can air the absurdities and problems they perceive at the spiritual market. For me MMY is nowadays just a cosmic clown, who is very useful in demonstrating what narcissism can create. I do however appreciate a lot of the wisdom that he earlier has brought out. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip he clearly is getting old and senile. Usually the nearest people protect the elderly person from this kind of humiliation. I guess MMY has no one near him, who really cares about him. Irmeli Funny how two people hearing, or reading the same thing can have completely opposite points of view. I find this latest transcript refreshing in that MMY is lucid and honest with his remarks. No signs of senility that I see. I think he may be somewhat less focused in his responses than he has been in the past, but I don't see any signs of senility either, certainly not enough to warrant protecting him from humiliation. Irmeli: Possibly not advanced senility, but clear regression in his mental capacities. Of course I read only those talks by him that appear here at FFL. It is possible that only his worst goofs get here. I quite honestly have difficulties to understand how anyone in full mental faculties could take him seriously. Judy:I can think of quite a few people that I don't understand how anyone with their full mental faculties could take seriously, whom no one accuses of regressing in their mental capacities, let alone becoming senile. One doesn't have to be mentally incompetent to spout nonsense. *I* don't take a lot of what MMY says seriously, but I don't assume that means he's regressed in his mental capacities. Those are really two different issues with different symptoms. Irmeli:As the title of this thread refers to I commented MMY:s reasoning around the concept caste. If I read that kind of text not knowing whose it is, I would very spontaneously think that the person is either an uncivilized Hindu fundamentalist, or the person to be mildly retarded in his/her mental capacities. There were too many inconsistencies in the text. Concepts were put in groups where they don't belong. People's intelligence is tested mainly how they can place items in correct groups. I think that you would also perceive these fallacies, if you didn't know the text was MMY's, or at the latest, when the Hindu concepts where replaced by let's say communist or Muslim slogans. Also the other thread here, where MMY's press conference behaviour was discussed, is rather revealing. Try yourself to respond to a person, who does questions to you, as MMY does, and observe how people around you start to perceive you. Occasional slip-up is understandable. We all have our bad days. But when it is a repeating pattern, other conclusions have to be made. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste system
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question - - - - - - - - - - In your vedic system, India establish caste system. If so, is this most harmful for society? Maharishi - - - - - - - - - -(Laughs) Caste is not harmful. That is what which makes a society. Caste. Mango is one caste. Apple is one caste. Banana is one caste. We want to eliminate all the different caste. (laughs) Who can make and unmake? Nobody can make and unmake caste system. They are natural phenomenon. Caste system is a natural phenomenon. Caste system is a natural phenomenon. People are different. The soul of all the people is the same. So something is different. Something is the same. Caste system is the most systematic, it's a system. It's a system of society. Without caste there will be hodgepodge. Nobody would know who is what, who is what, who is what. Caste system is everywhere. It's a natura l phenomenon. It's a natural existence. It's a natural thing. Those who do not know, they can say anything. Like a mad man, they can say anything. But what does it mean to any sensible man? Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch. Each is a caste by itself. And all the caste make a body, make a man, make a society, make a country. Those who want to disrupt the harmony, they come with all these slogans and disrupt the harmony, make the people confuse and all that, all that. But that does not mean it has any substance in its content. No. Indian Press Conference - - - - - - - - - 7/17/03 Some people may want to believe this nonsense, because the guru is claimed to be enlightened and they perceive some simplicity and beauty in the claims. Even if the statement has parts in it that are true like People are different, the whole here makes an awful hodgepodge. Apples and mangos are not different castes. They are different fruits. Eyes, ears tongues are not caste. They are organs. Common to fruits, organs and caste is that they are groupings. Caste in India is a rigid system of social classes based on birth. This rigidity brings with it awful, unnatural tensions. All children are not born with the same inclinations and capacities as their parents. Societies in which there are no rigid caste systems are doing much better than those, which have it. Caste can be undone. On the other hand hierarchies and differentiations cannot be undone. They form a pillar of a well functioning society. In modern societies hierarchies are more and more based on competence and capacity to take responsibility. MMY says here: Those who do not know, they can say anything. Like a mad man, they can say anything. I think he is by that statement subconsciously describing himself. MMY has been successful in surrounding himself with yes-men. That success has however created a situation were he can get no critical assessment and he is totally free to publicly humiliate himself, when he clearly is getting old and senile. Usually the nearest people protect the elderly person from this kind of humiliation. I guess MMY has no one near him, who really cares about him. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still believe that it owes a lot to Buddhism... That's a stretch. Many translations of the First Noble Truth have it as Life is suffering, but that's not related in any way to God, since they don't believe in one. To say life is suffering implies there is something-- a condition or state--that is *not* suffering. If suffering is said to be a lack, there is something-- a condition or state--in which nothing is lacking. What is it? ++ State of mind? In a way. If (as the Four Noble Truths state) the cause of suffering is attachment to desire/aversion, then living in a state of mind that is *not* attached to achieving the fruits of desire or avoiding the things one is averse to is a way beyond suffering. The input to life doesn't change, only one's ability to greet it with equanimity. Try to force the square peg of that input into the round hole of one's desires, and you get suffering. Treat it as a square peg and be neither attached nor averse, no suffering. Nothing to achieve, no obstacles to remove from the path to non-suffering, nowhere to go. Same old same old...just life dealt with as What Is, not What You'd Like Life To Be. Just for fun, compare and contrast this to MMY's latest U.N. rap, in which he once again presents his S-V theories and suggests that the problems of the world can't be solved unless one starts over with all-new buildings. In the Buddhist view, this approach to resolving suffering can never work because it is based upon trying to change the input of life to avoid suffering, rather than change the inner being's ability to deals with the input with- out attachment. In the Buddhist view, the richest, most successful person in the world, living in a perfectly-aligned S-V house but still attached to his desires, will be lost in suffering. Whereas the poor person who lives in a cardboard box, if he is not attached to his desires, is beyond suffering. The basic division between suffering and non-suffering lies in, as Barry puts it, if you can accept `What is', or if you want to make life what you want or dream it to be. Paradoxically also accepting 'what is' much more effectively leads to transformation and true healing. The latter way was my way of functioning until age 16. I perceived many faults and defects in myself and wanted to become like some of my peers I admired. The efforts I made to change myself lead mainly to big disappointments and even to worsening of my problems. Then at 16 I got the realization that life doesn't expect me to be like someone, it accepts me as nothing. Life accepts me as no one. There is an evolutionary impulse deep in life's functioning. All I need to do is to align with this evolutionary impulse. It meant `active passivity'. Passivity meant accepting yourself as you are, or being nothing, and not trying to become something. Active meant being alert in nothingness and acting when an impulse appeared from deep inside. This was a start of a highly interesting and exciting journey of life consciously appreciating transformation. And I want to emphasise the word start. I had just got a stable platform. Being established on that I can keep basic stability and calm in the whirls of true transformation and even enjoy the journey, just as you can find a roller coaster ride very enjoyable. For a person, who does not rest on this kind of very stable platform, enlightenment as a dream state means a blissful end station, where all the whirls of painful creation and destruction have ceased. There the essential nature of life is a threat, and enlightenment means you don't need to re-incarnate anymore. Felt pain, mental or physical, is an important source of suffering. Pain that one can accept I don't call suffering. It is just a very intense sensation. Fear makes pain worse. Embracing resolves it. This is of course much more easily said than done. I know this myself thoroughly through my own life experience. I have a hereditary muscular disease. For a very long time (from childhood on, getting worse when I became adult) I felt very uncomfortable pain in my hands and feet. At worst it felt like an awful pain in my bones. I was afraid of this pain. It made me react physically to it by contraction, which made the disease progress. The culmination of this process happened in 92, when intense burning and tingling sensations appeared in my feet. My feet were like burning, and simultaneously it could feel like they were in ice and freezing. It was awful. However I recognized hidden rage in this pain and started to work with it. I engaged myself also in long psychotherapy to help the rocess. Gradually the burning sensation started to diminish and my perception of it to change. I can still occasionally have intense burning sensations in my feet, but now I can appreciate this
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I still believe that it owes a lot to Buddhism... That's a stretch. Many translations of the First Noble Truth have it as Life is suffering, but that's not related in any way to God, since they don't believe in one. To say life is suffering implies there is something-- a condition or state--that is *not* suffering. If suffering is said to be a lack, there is something-- a condition or state--in which nothing is lacking. What is it? ++ State of mind? In a way. If (as the Four Noble Truths state) the cause of suffering is attachment to desire/aversion, then living in a state of mind that is *not* attached to achieving the fruits of desire or avoiding the things one is averse to is a way beyond suffering. The input to life doesn't change, only one's ability to greet it with equanimity. Try to force the square peg of that input into the round hole of one's desires, and you get suffering. Treat it as a square peg and be neither attached nor averse, no suffering. Nothing to achieve, no obstacles to remove from the path to non-suffering, nowhere to go. Same old same old...just life dealt with as What Is, not What You'd Like Life To Be. Just for fun, compare and contrast this to MMY's latest U.N. rap, in which he once again presents his S-V theories and suggests that the problems of the world can't be solved unless one starts over with all-new buildings. In the Buddhist view, this approach to resolving suffering can never work because it is based upon trying to change the input of life to avoid suffering, rather than change the inner being's ability to deals with the input with- out attachment. In the Buddhist view, the richest, most successful person in the world, living in a perfectly-aligned S-V house but still attached to his desires, will be lost in suffering. Whereas the poor person who lives in a cardboard box, if he is not attached to his desires, is beyond suffering. The basic division between suffering and non-suffering lies in, as Barry puts it, if you can accept `What is', or if you want to make life what you want or dream it to be. Paradoxically also accepting 'what is' much more effectively leads to transformation and true healing. The latter way was my way of functioning until age 16. I perceived many faults and defects in myself and wanted to become like some of my peers I admired. The efforts I made to change myself lead mainly to big disappointments and even to worsening of my problems. Then at 16 I got the realization that life doesn't expect me to be like someone, it accepts me as nothing. Life accepts me as no one. There is an evolutionary impulse deep in life's functioning. All I need to do is to align with this evolutionary impulse. It meant `active passivity'. Passivity meant accepting yourself as you are, or being nothing, and not trying to become something. Active meant being alert in nothingness and acting when an impulse appeared from deep inside. This was a start of a highly interesting and exciting journey of life consciously appreciating transformation. And I want to emphasise the word start. I had just got a stable platform. Being established on that I can keep basic stability and calm in the whirls of true transformation and even enjoy the journey, just as you can find a roller coaster ride very enjoyable. For a person, who does not rest on this kind of very stable platform, enlightenment as a dream state means a blissful end station, where all the whirls of painful creation and destruction have ceased. There the essential nature of life is a threat, and enlightenment means you don't need to re-incarnate anymore. Felt pain, mental or physical, is an important source of suffering. Pain that one can accept I don't call suffering. It is just a very intense sensation. Fear makes pain worse. Embracing resolves it. This is of course much more easily said than done. I know this myself thoroughly through my own life experience. I have a hereditary muscular disease. For a very long time (from childhood on, getting worse when I became adult) I felt very uncomfortable pain in my hands and feet. At worst it felt like an awful pain in my bones. I was afraid of this pain. It made me react physically to it by contraction, which made the disease progress. The culmination of this process happened in 92, when intense burning and tingling sensations appeared in my feet. My feet were like burning, and simultaneously it could feel like they were in ice and freezing. It was awful. However I recognized hidden rage in this pain and started to work with it. I engaged myself also in long psychotherapy to help the rocess. Gradually
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The really problematic dimension of suffering is not personal (if one can indeed become detached from internal desire or aversion) - it is interpersonal. Try being detatched whilst your loved ones are being tortured... It is not about being emotionally detached. It is about embracing all the awful emotions the situation arises, and by no way trying to diminish the horror of the situation. This is much easier to accomplish when the `I ` is firmly established on a ground where it does not anymore identify with these emotions. Not identifying does not mean not feeling intensely. It means that you can keep yourself separate from the emotions. It is a situation where you have emotions in your system, body and mind. You are not the emotions, you have them, you witness them and simultaneously observe and feel them very intensely. I went through this kind of torture experience when my father was very sick and he was given wrong kind of medication. For a month he was in a catatonic state, very stiff, not capable of speaking. He could only scream for help, which he did whenever he had enough energy for screaming. And he was full of panic and fear and pain, which they tried to medicate down, but actually made only worse. He deep inside himself knew this and wanted away from the hospital, but couldn't express himself. And even if he had been, they wouldn't have let him go. It was awful to sit in the hospital at his bedside and be with him in his enormous suffering. Once when I went to the hospital, my husband said to me:You look like you were going to a beheading. I did not understand at that time the medication caused this torture to my father. After a month they moved him to the University Hospital and there they immediately realized it was the medication that caused his suffering. They stopped the medication and after one week he was much better, and after two weeks again at home. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: The really problematic dimension of suffering is not personal (if one can indeed become detached from internal desire or aversion) - it is interpersonal. Try being detatched whilst your loved ones are being tortured... It is not about being emotionally detached. It is about embracing all the awful emotions the situation arises, and by no way trying to diminish the horror of the situation. This is much easier to accomplish when the `I ` is firmly established on a ground where it does not anymore identify with these emotions. Not identifying does not mean not feeling intensely. It means that you can keep yourself separate from the emotions. It is a situation where you have emotions in your system, body and mind. You are not the emotions, you have them, you witness them and simultaneously observe and feel them very intensely. I went through this kind of torture experience when my father was very sick and he was given wrong kind of medication. For a month he was in a catatonic state, very stiff, not capable of speaking. He could only scream for help, which he did whenever he had enough energy for screaming. And he was full of panic and fear and pain, which they tried to medicate down, but actually made only worse. He deep inside himself knew this and wanted away from the hospital, but couldn't express himself. And even if he had been, they wouldn't have let him go. It was awful to sit in the hospital at his bedside and be with him in his enormous suffering. Once when I went to the hospital, my husband said to me:You look like you were going to a beheading. I did not understand at that time the medication caused this torture to my father. After a month they moved him to the University Hospital and there they immediately realized it was the medication that caused his suffering. They stopped the medication and after one week he was much better, and after two weeks again at home. Irmeli One emotion there is however that I don't easily experience and that is getting hurt of something someone says to me. Often I may not even observe the insult, or if I observe I may react by getting furious and try to express why I felt the person's behaviour was inconsiderate or stupid. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: One emotion there is however that I don't easily experience and that is getting hurt of something someone says to me. Often I may not even observe the insult, or if I observe I may react by getting furious and try to express why I felt the person's behaviour was inconsiderate or stupid. Who is being insulted? If you've experienced every notion you've ever had of who and what you are dissolving into light, over and over and over, what's left to be insulted, or to resent the insult? What makes me react by fury sometimes is, when my husband keeps on nagging and nagging to me about some minor details in a weary tone. There maybe some drops of juice on the kitchen floor that he feels on his soles. Or there is something in the layout in my work he does not like, which I think is very easy for him to change. I just cannot know exactly what he wants. He expresses it as if I were deliberately tormenting him by this kind of behaviour. Usually I don't care about his nagging at all. And then suddenly I feel insulted and frustrated by it and get ballistic. And then he often runs off, because I tend to put my words in a way that hurt him deeply. No name-calling. I just do a deep analysis of him. Earlier he could feel hurt for a week or two, during which he didn't speak to me. Nowadays most of it goes away in one day. When I get hurt, it lasts only for the moment of my blast and then it is gone. This probably is not the most smart behaviour. However I have not come upon a better way of dealing with my frustration. I have also tried to correct the details he gets irritated about. That is however no solution, because then he gets irritated about something that didn't irritate him before. But this is not a cause of suffering to me, but a challenge it is, that I have not been capable of solving. To be quite honest I also enjoy these blasts. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SELF-DOUBT AND CYNICISM VS. PROFOUND TRUST From a Talk by Adyashanti There is nothing more insidiously destructive to the attainment of liberation than self-doubt and cynicism. Doubt is a movement of the conditioned mind that always claims that it's not possible ... that freedom is not possible for me [or for you - or at least it is very very difficult, very distant]. Doubt always knows; it knows that nothing is possible. And in this knowing, doubt robs you of the pos- sibility of anything truly new or transformative from happening. Fur- thermore, doubt is always accompanied by a pervasive cynicism that unconsciously puts a negative spin on whatever it touches. Cynicism is a world view which protects the ego from scrutiny by maintaining a negative stance in relationship to what it does not know, does not want to know, or cannot know. Many spiritual seekers have no idea how cynical and doubt-laden they actually are. It is this blindness and denial of the presence of doubt and cynicism that makes the birth of a profound trust impossible - a trust without which final libera- tion will always remain simply a dream. - Adyashanti A complementary perspective to Adhyasanti's view: For evolving to higher stages of consciousness, more destructive than self-doubt and cynicism, is an unquestioning mind with no capacity to inner inquiry and dialogue. Whatever grandiose idea of oneself appears is taken to be the absolute truth, doubts are immediately suppressed, if they ever appear. Doubts and cynicism can be quite destructive. However I see even that kind of tormenting doubt as one of the first steps into an acquisition of capacity to inner dialogue. Denial of the presence of doubt leads to suppression. Working with doubts canlead to a transformation, where doubt becomes a constructive inner voice and opener to inner inquiry. A person who suppresses doubt has an internal structure that could be called fundamentalism. A person who has no doubts is even below that developmentally. Being beyond fundamentalism means capacity to handle doubts and also difficult emotions in an constructive way. In my teens I remember myself spending long ours almost daily in an inner dialogue. An idea came to my mind. Soon after that appeared an opposing idea that doubted or disapproved with the first idea. I calmly just witnessed this discussion and dialogue inside and it gradually got more and more subtle, and dealt with many important existential questions. I still remember one pearl that was created through these dialogues: If there is God, and he is the embodiment of Truth, he can only expect from me that I do what I understand to be true and right. Even if that meant the denial of God. And it actually meant it for me then. I think this insight appeared at 14. I also claim that it was this kind of inner dialogue that lead to the powerful experience of realization I had at age 16, that I have described more in details many times here at FFL Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [That trust is also often called homage, or even devotion or surrender - and the path that encompasses this openness of heart is called bhakti. Once Self-realization is ripening, this open- ness of heart in devotion is essential in order to expand out and meet and imbibe your god/goddess. - MDG] BHAGAVAD GITA ON HOMAGE, REPEATED INQUIRY, AND SERVICE For example, in the Bhagavad Gita, 4:34, Lord Krishna says: Through homage, repeated inquiry, and service, the men of knowledge who have experienced Reality will teach you knowledge. Maharishi's commentary says: By 'homage' is meant submission or surrender. The commentary says that surrender to the teacher (ultimately to the Truth that the teacher is a reflector of), is the prerequisite for asking questions (repeated inquiry, or curiosity). After devotion, the questions are true seekings for deeper understanding. There is no hint of any intention to diminish the teacher or test the teacher or argue with the teacher or improve the teacher - no hint of any in- tention to doubt the teacher or the Truth. There is no intention to play the game I'm more OK, based on making you less OK. The teacher has already been accepted fully as a conduit of Truth, and the inten- tion of the inquiry is to make everyone more and more OK, more and more infinite/vast/divine. Then the heart of the teacher opens wide, any and all questions are welcome and appropriate, and deep knowledge flows in response to them. This acceptance of the teacher is actually a surrender to the unbounded Truth; it invites the unbounded to shine forth through the teacher. This trust or surrender means that the individual has gotten out of the way to some extent, has dropped their ego-defend- ing patterns, has dropped their guard. Before trust, before devotion, the questions are not really from a surrendered place. The questioner has not accepted the teacher as a teacher, the questioner has not accepted the limitations of his/her own relative ego/intellect, and therefore there is not that open flow of knowledge. In the questions there may be some lack of respect for the teacher, some implication that the teacher is not competent, some belittling or depreciation of the teacher. The teacher's heart is not opened by this, the recipient's guard is not put down, and the flow of Truth is not profound. We all know from everyday experience that questions (curiosity) gener- ally can have two very distinct purposes, even in mundane conversation: 1. To actually gain understanding, as sincere inquiries; to create love/togetherness/unity by going deeper into knowledge; to open the conduit for richer flow of knowledge. 2. To hide something behind the smokescreen of a question: a. To hide our criticism/anger, to avoid making a directly critical statement. b. To hide that we're trying to control or dominate someone - to hide that we're trying to manipulate someone or trying to engage someone in a game. c. To create doubt/division/fear. In this case, questions are actually deceptions, a kind of passive/ aggressive behavior. Rather than saying what we feel in direct statements, we hide behind questions. If challenged, if our true but hidden feelings or motives are noticed, we can always say I didn't mean any criticism - I was just wondering Often it is apparent to observers, and to the recipient of the question, that we were NOT just wondering. The question has an obvious edge to it, or it asks for an answer that we already know or could figure out, or it is pretty blatantly a manipulation, or it just leaves the recipient feeling odd, as though they've been tricked or mess- ed with. Although not so easy to say in words, the difference in how it feels to receive these two different kinds of questions (inquiries) is energetically obvious to most of us. Sincere questions, without hidden emotional agendas or motives, evoke an open flow of knowledge, evoke more unity and deepening, and don't leave a strange aftertaste. The nature of a person's speech (and writing), especially their style of spiritual inquiry and discussion (as on this list), is very reveal- ing about the condition of their heart and mind. They reveal so clear- ly whether they are swimming in the sea of doubt and cynicism and ego- defense, or whether they've found the life-preserver of surrender and simplicity and concern for others. Namaste, Michael Also a complementary perspective to Goodman's view: Bhagavad Gita, 4:34, Lord Krishna says: Through homage, repeated inquiry, and service, the men of knowledge who have experienced Reality will teach you reality. My dictionary translates homage to mean respect, reverence, and not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Self-doubt and cynicism vs. profound trust - the role of surrender as the fo
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip Although I think that also God makes mistakes and learns through and from them. Question on this one point: By what standard can it be said that God makes mistakes? It is just the observation that evolving in nature happens through errors and in animals also by avoiding the mistakes and as even in a more advanced form humans can sometimes also learn from mistakes. I consider the manifest creation to be expression of God or one aspect of God. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] What is art? (was Re: What is Spirituality?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bhakti is that thing that t3rinity thinks that Michael Dean Goodman practices, and that he blasted Irmeli for attacking when she criticized MDG's logic. The fact that, AFAIK, neither MDG or Irmeli ever used the word 'bhakti' and almost certainly didn't have bhakti in their minds when they wrote what they wrote has nothing to do with it. There are a few things that intrigue me about t3rinity. Does he consciously distort our views just because they irritate him? Or does he have some sort of dyslexia and he does not properly understand written text? Or probably he is not competent in formal operational thinking and hence puts together concepts and ideas illogically, forgets what he attacked at and claimed in an earlier post and claims the opposite in the next post. His rules of throwing out ideas seem to be that something sounds good, and he has heard someone use the phrase, and it seems to make a good striking weapon at the very moment. He has no hesitation using ideas this way even if he one post earlier claimed opposite. And there seems to be an ego in him that gets very easily hurt. All this points to weak skills in formal operational thinking, where principles rule, not the egos needs and hurts. He has apparently also found the principles: attack is the best defence and blame others for your own weaknesses successful survival strategies. There he however has made a grave mistake. If he uses these strategies also in his personal relationships, he must have faced many disappointments on that front. He most probably blames others for the disappointments and cannot see how the problems come from his way of relating to others. In this kind of situation he can get a lot of consolation from cherishing sentiments of bhakti towards a distant guru, with whom he cannot be in personal relationship. And that is fine, if it helps him. I'm sure he gets furious about this. If he does not, and laughs to this nonsense, then I certainly have wrong here. I don't feel totally comfortable posting this, but here inside me resides also a challenger, who thinks, that an effective way of confronting certain repeating dysfunctional patterns, is by trying to bring the structures to the open, even if it might cause some turmoil. I really find t3rinity's way of communicating appalling. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] What is art? (was Re: What is Spirituality?)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm outa this, having written a let's let it drop note to t3rinity, and having meant it. On the other hand, I just can't wait to see how you rip MDG a new one for his latest novel...uh...I mean post...if *it* gets your dander up. :-) :-) :-) I just thought it might be too lengthy for me to bother to read it. Let's see now. At least earlier he has not had the same appalling problems of in communication as t3rinty has. irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Illusion of individuality; labels; true bhakti; the story of Guru Dev and hi
I liked this post a lot. It is an honest account of Goodman's personal path and of his own insights and discriminations. I find Goodman's relationship to MMY have similar qualities than the TM-teacher I meet every now and then at lunch. That teacher has done the re-certification course. All the apparent absurdities in the movement don't bother him. He is somehow happily beyond them. There is something very beautiful and innocent in his relationship to MMY. The absurdities of the movement seem to have had a softening and moulding effect on his earlier quite rigid beliefs and attachments. I respect his devotion very much and I consider him to be doing fine. To be a `true believer' in this way is a fine and beautiful thing. To be a TB in a way as to using one's only right belief as a justification to morally low actions, and abuse and control of others is an distorted form, but quite common. This form of the TB phenomenon has mostly been discussed here and this discussion is very important. My main criticism is of Goodman's post is that he tries to make wrong this kind of discussion. Or at least he claims reasoning in those lines to be at the same level as the fundamentalist's reasoning, only from the opposite direction. I disagree. Sometimes fundamentalism can become wrapped in rigid rationality or rationalisations and use of science as religion. In those cases his criticism is appropriate, otherwise not. I also disagree with the idea that no one is objective until they are re-established in the Self. I claim that we cannot even then be fully objective, to be representing the absolute truth. The absolute is beyond the manifest phenomenal world. When the I becomes established in the transcendental, it becomes very stable and dis-identified with ideas of oneself, gross or subtle emotions etc. This I has no form, not even truth as we understand it. This kind of I does not so easily identify with subjective states and therefore it is capable of looking at also internal phenomenon from a stable and calm position. It is very difficult to hurt this kind of I. Still it also always looks at things from a perspective, maybe from several perspectives, but never from all the possible and valid perspectives. I agree fully of the importance of surrendering the gross level calculating intellect as an ultimate guiding light. We cannot evolve to higher ways of being, or stages of development by relying on our intellect. Our intellect can create only variations of structures familiar to us. If we want to evolve we have to surrender and let ourselves to be guided. But simultaneously our discriminative capacity and sound judgement are great assets in avoiding pitfalls while surrendering. Otherwise surrendering may insidiously change to regression. And we start using intellect to find justifications to our morally low actions. However the reality is usually more complicated than this division because often surrender and regression are both present and we are not capable of discriminating them from each other. I also personally feel to be strongly guided. Not by any single being in physical form, present or past, rather by all of them. I have also surrendered to and am also guided by the transcendental that is beyond my understanding and intellect. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THE STRUGGLE OF INDIVIDUALITY TO PERPETUATE ITS ILLUSION I feel compassionately sad whenever I meet those who still cling to the idea that their individuality (individual intellect) can guide them to the goal of realization, of remembering, of waking up again to Reality. They're sure that they don't need a guide on the path, don't need to surrender control, don't need to ask for help, and don't need to embrace their intellect's incompetence and impotence to handle the job. They are sure that their relative, finite intellect, bound in the world of space and time, can grok and master infinity, the field without boundaries, far beyond the ken of the relative intellect. That is delusion, that is arrogance of the deepest kind, that is the very essence of ignorance. Their individual ego/intellect has convinced them to trust it (not only to trust it, but to actually believe that they ARE it), and to never entertain the idea that the ego/intellect's assertion of its importance and ability to guide them back home IS ITSELF THE VERY CRUX OF THE PROBLEM, the very core of the ignorance. HIRING THE THIEF TO CATCH THE THIEF It is like hiring the master cat burglar (albeit in his clever dis- guise as the 'great detective') to solve the string of (his) burglar- ies. The great detective (master burglar) will will NEVER EVER turn himself in, never participate in his own exposure, but instead will always have some encouraging progress report, and some inspiring vi- sion of possibilities, to string us along as long as possible, as he secretly continues his
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM Course Fees and The Real Goals of the Movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman Tantra@ wrote: big snip The trends of time are being changed; Kali herself is being challenged! big snip I wonder why in the Hindu beliefsystems the pathologies of the present world are seen as female energies? I personally see the problems being more in patriarchal male energies that are very much addicted to power, money and control over others, especially over women. These narcissistic energies are the main cause of violence, suffering and poverty in our time. And these tendencies are more prevalent in males. Women have naturally more capacity to empathy. The population explosion is a main cause of poverty and illiteracy. And the subjugation of women is the cause of excessive breeding in a time, when birth control is easily available. Motherhood is the only means to these women get some appreciation. Male chauvinism and patriarchal structures have been challenged with very good results in the west and should be challenged in the east also. The concept Kaliyuga tells me that in Hindu culture the males in power project their inner darkness and pathologies on their subjugated women. Disgusting! so what's your take on Mother Divine as a Hindu term? Mother Divine, and Kali as her one aspect, I consider to be important myths and powerful symbols. I understand Mother Divine to represent the all-pervading influence the mother has in a new born child's world. The mother's influence on the future development of the child is huge. Many modern psychologists say that all the important structures in humans are established during the first three years of life. The way the mother relates to and communicates with the child largely determines how he/she later in life relates to people around. The course of the life of an individual after those important years is just repetition in different external forms of those early structures. And in that respect the kali energies are very real also. Mothers are not perfect. They easily transfer their own pathologies to their children. My main criticism of the Kali concept, was the idea of these kali energies being the cause of the malaise of our time. Subjugated women and mothers have very little possibilities of working through their internal tensions. Submissiveness hides the problems, and that way they go direct to the next generation. Women should have in relationships and marriages equal rights to men. Women can evolve only if they can feel free and safe to express their true nature. From one perspective one could say that Kaliyuga is gone, when the important and highly responsible role of mothers is fully understood, and men have evolved beyond their patriarchal need for power, control and a sense superiority over women, and women are encouraged to study and make their own careers so that they don't need to realize their own power trips through children. You realize, of course, that many of the world's cultures originally had matriarchal societies with matriarchal godesses? Get ahold of _When God Was a Woman_. Also, Evangeline Walton's Mbnogian tetrology tells the legends from the perspective of the transition of female- dominated Ireland to male-dominated Ireland. Thank you for the reading suggestions! Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Should Bhakti be beyond criticism? (was TM Course Fees and The Real Goals )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip Generally I dislike in this post the tone of idealizing one person's work, and the egoistic approach of trying to make his work crucial to human consciousness evolution in this time. You *dislike* it right? It's just judgement, that's okay. But I can tell you why: Michael idealizes MMY's work, simply because he *loves* MMY. The explantions he gives are logical, but the idealization is of his heart. That's Bhakti, reverence, in Michaels case for the guru. You dislike it, showing me that you don't have Bhakti, cannot recognize it when you see it, and have even may feel disgust for it. Poor you! Not that you should idealize or appreciate the MMY. But if you have Bhakti yourself, that is Love for God, or for your teacher etc, you will easily recognize it in others, like - lets say Muslims who pray and don't like to be ridiculed for their religion. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but its the *tone* you dislike, and you even think he is egoistic in that. Nothing could be further from truth. Egoistic are those missing Bhakti. Again, poor you! I have tried to make the case, that one can view MMY's action in an impersonal way, as a tool of Brahman, like anybody else knowingly or unknowingly. From all indications that we get from MMY it is very much Knowingly, but never mind, one can look at this whole theme of a staged evolution, as Michael was expounding it, in a completely impersonal way, MMY only being a tool at the time, with no real judgement involved. In that sense there is neither a necessity for condemnation nor appreciation. But the appreciation shows Bhakti, and there is a mutual appreciation among Bhaktas, as the Self is seen in the Other, and not just narcistically inside oneself, as in CC. For many the first focal point of the Self outside is the Guru. So much for your *dislike* ;-) *** Are you saying that the ideas of a person, who shows Bhakti should not be discussed or evaluated? You expect everyone to know, that people having Bhakti are untouchable and their thoughts and actions are beyond criticism. Who has created that law ? The true believers, and they threaten by it anyone, who challenge their holy notions. That is a very dangerous idea as human history shows. A lot of cruelties have been done in so called righteous anger by the true believers. I dislike your tone much more than Michael Goodman's, because in you I sense the fanaticism of a true believer, not in him. I also sense that you were hurt and you deeply disliked my comment on Goodman's post. Does your thinking go like this: Because you don't perceive Bhakti in me, you can dislike my ideas fully freely, but not the possibly very odd ideas of a Muslim in whom you perceive Bhakti? I disliked in Goodman's post the way he uses his intellect to defend MMY by denying or forgetting many important facts in MMY's track record. When logic is used that way, it inevitably gets distorted. A person, who uses one's intellect in that fashion is often easy prey for people, who don't let their disturbing emotions bend their intellect. When someone becomes terribly hurt of rather main stream theories like mine here, where no personal insults, name calling or threats are present, I interpret it to mean that I have made a hit. In other words my theories have touched the truth you are trying to deny. I do recognize Bhakti and I do respect it. Apparently you perceive Bhakti only, when distorted use of intellect is present also. True believers hate clear intellect. They would want to burn alive anyone who challenges their distorted ideas. And they have done it innumerable times. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Should Bhakti be beyond criticism? (was TM Course Fees and The Real Goals )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip Generally I dislike in this post the tone of idealizing one person's work, and the egoistic approach of trying to make his work crucial to human consciousness evolution in this time. *** Irmeli: Are you saying that the ideas of a person, who shows Bhakti should not be discussed or evaluated? T3rinity: No, of course not. I haven't objected to anything you disagreed about with Michael, I have solely commented on your dislike for his attitude. You said: Generally I *dislike* in this post the *tone* of *idealizing* one person's work, and the *egoistic* approach of trying to make his work crucial to human consciousness evolution in this time. I did not comment on any of your disagreements in the actual matters (which weren't at all convincing, they were just a matter of stating an opposing POV without giving any reasonable backup why that view was preferable), but about your *dislike* of Michaels *tone*. I couldn't help seeing your general attitude in this and commented on it. Irmeli: I did not write that I dislike Goodman's Bhakti attitude. Actually I do appreciate it. My dislike is about how he uses his intellect, the disagreement is in actual matters, as you express it. Irmeli: You expect everyone to know, that people having Bhakti are untouchable and their thoughts and actions are beyond criticism. T3rinity: No of course their thoughts and actions can be critizised, you are missing my point. Just their attitude of Bhakti itself presents a value in itself. I don't dump on it, but appreciate it. Very subtle but important point. Irmeli: I also appreciate Bhakti as a value in itself. Where did I claim otherwise? I just have not discussed Bhakti earlier here. Irmeli: Who has created that law ? The true believers, and they threaten by it anyone, who challenge their holy notions. T3rinity: First of all: Its not 'they', but me. AFAIK I am the first one to bring this anti-Bhakti attitude of yours and others up as a topic, and that rightly so. I don't think that you are getting my point at all. That is, that not the object of Bhakti is beyond of disput, but rather that Bhakti is a spiritual value in itself. If somebody choses to have Bhakti - love and dedication - to someone, its first of all a matter of his choice. The other thing is, I'm glad you bring it up again, that you constantly dump on Bhaktas as 'True Believers' as if they are sort of stupid, inferior etc. Truely speaking, I find this arrogance disgusting. People who love, who have dedication, something that you are obviously missing (I feel sorry for you about that) are portrayed and ridiculed by this term by you and others constantly, as sort of weak etc. The truth is that ALL Hindu scriptures regard this attitude as indespensible for one's Sadhana. That doesn't mean that everything what the object of adoration may do is therefore automatically justified (but Michael gave very good *logical* reasons for his POV). But the tone adoration itself should not be disgarded in the way you did, and you actually constantly do. Irmeli: Where have expressed myself being against Bhakti. I just don't like it, when Bhakti is used as an excuse to cherishing thoughtforms and ideas that are not allowed to be criticised. Irmeli: That is a very dangerous idea as human history shows. T3rinity: That may be, but that's not what I am doing. You crossly misinterpret me. Haha, you are just blaming all the wars on believers again, while its clear that they were done by men of power, misusing the religions. While I am speaking of the simple people who *practise* religion. Irmeli: I agree Bhakti in humble people is fine. But Bhakti in religions quite often becomes fanatic and violent rigidity, with a lot of denial of reality. It is not just men of power, who have misused religion. The fanatic masses that have given power to those dictators are even more responsible of the cruelties.For this reason I get alarmed, when people with Bhakti show denial of facts. Irmeli: A lot of cruelties have been done in so called righteous anger by the true believers. T3rinity: I'm not talking about anger but about love. You again misuse the term true believers to dump on Bhaktas Irmeli: Even if you claim yourself to be talking about love your earlier post came across as very hostile. Irmeli: I dislike your tone much more than Michael Goodman's, because in you I sense the fanaticism of a true believer, not in him. T3rinity: That's because you don't know me and are judgemental. Irmeli: It is a felt impression of you. Are you claiming that you can avoid being judgemental
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM Course Fees and The Real Goals of the Movement
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Dean Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: big snip These money-controllers drain half of the creative intelligence off the face of the Earth through their money schemes; they play let's you and him fight with nations and foster wars for their own gain; they promote terrorism if it's expedient for their plans; they choose or eliminate the leaders of great nations and dictate their actions. They have money beyond belief, money beyond human ability to spend; they aren't even in it for the money anymore, but for pure power, pure control. They are demonic. Maharishi is one of the rare people on Earth who see them clearly for what they are, who are not gripped by their money game, and who have actually taken them on, stood up to them, challenged them. He is the hope of the world. big snip MMY admires rich people and loves their money and power. And most probably he can also see through these people, because he is similar to them himself. My mother always knew, when I tried to tell a lie, because she was a brilliant liar herself. She knew all the subtle mechanics of that art in and out. By getting immediately exposed very effectively discouraged my own career as a liar. In that sense she was a very good teacher for me. Generally I dislike in this post the tone of idealizing one person's work, and the egoistic approach of trying to make his work crucial to human consciousness evolution in this time. My own take is that collectively a readiness for a leap in consciousness has been there already for while. And people in the west are generally more ready for it than the east. For the leap to happen we just need in the west a few missing ingredients, that guru's and teachers from the east have been bringing to us. These teachers or messengers have played an important role here. And MMY has been only one of many eastern teachers, who have successfully brought the missing ingredients to the west. The east also misses something the west has. It is the capacity to live and realize in every day life equality between people, and the capacity to be in a dialogue. This kind of awareness opens the possibility of really functioning democracy and social welfare for all people. It is a slow process for the eastern people to evolve to that kind of awareness. No amount of meditation alone will help them. Improving the position of women could do wonders. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: You've browsed the CHopra website and approve of what you find there? Interesting... I receive a newsletter from the Chopra Center. I have never observed anything that I wouldn't approve of there. Tell me what is there I possibly couldn't accept, so I'll check it out. Irmeli Why don't you just browse the website. It's not hard to find: http://www.chopra.com I have done that superficially. I don't have time to do it more thoroughly. I have my job also and a home to take care of. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've browsed the CHopra website and approve of what you find there? Interesting... I receive a newsletter from the Chopra Center. I have never observed anything that I wouldn't approve of there. Tell me what is there I possibly couldn't accept, so I'll check it out. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: I have a really good rapport with him. In the late 80's my participation in the TMO was mainly because of him. I lost my interest in the TMO, when Chopra left and I saw how the movement treated him. How was that? He left and the movement ignored him. He rewrote his books to delete virtually all mention of TM and MMY and hasn't re- released Return of the Rishi since he left the TMO. What other famous person have you ever heard of who won't publish his previously published autobiography? Why do you suppose he hasn't republished it? I think the vehemence is actually envy. Sparaig: Perhaps, or perhaps you're projecting your own feelings. Irmeli: Could you explain to me what emotions I'm projecting and on whom? Maybe you can help me find out some of my blind spots? You're saying the TMO has vehemence towards Chopra. Actually, the official policy of the TMO is to not talk about Chopra at all. At least for a few years *after* Chopra left the TMO, the son of Chopra's publicist continued to be on Perusha. He was a tad defensive to me about his mother's identity when we spoke on the phone once, but obviously, his mother's professional (and likely personal) relationship with Chopra had not gotten him kicked off the program simply because of the choices of his mom and her professional clients. If there was a genuine vehemence on the part of the TMO itself, they would have found some reason to get him gone, don't you think? BTW, you never answered my question: Why do you suppose he hasn't republished it? [Chopra's autobiography] I got plugged into this thread by reading Barry's post, where he was wondering about the vehemence towards Chopra in the discussion by you and some others. I have no opinion about the republishing, because I have no background information. I don't understand, why you connect an adult man's doings and career choices to what his mother is doing. Are you saying that the rules on the Purusha and MD are such, that a person cannot stay there, if his or her parents are found to have careers that are unsuitable to the present TMO dogma. For example, the parent is a politician and a devout adherent of democracy. Are you in a leading position on the Purusha, or why did you question the man about his mother's identity? I found it very odd that, when Chopra left the TMO, one was not anymore allowed to talk about him. Earlier he was talked about almost as much as MMY, and suddenly he or his books didn't exist anymore. The teachers actually behaved like he had never existed. I had met this kind of behaviour earlier only in the former Soviet Union, and considered that kind of denial of history to be very pathological. You didn't answer this question of mine: Could you explain to me what emotions I'm projecting and on whom? Maybe you can help me find out some of my blind spots? I have now answered to your questions. Maybe you could answer to my questions now? Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: I think the vehemence is actually envy. Sparaig: Perhaps, or perhaps you're projecting your own feelings. Irmeli: Could you explain to me what emotions I'm projecting and on whom? Maybe you can help me find out some of my blind spots? Sparaig: You're saying the TMO has vehemence towards Chopra. Actually, the official policy of the TMO is to not talk about Chopra at all. At least for a few years *after* Chopra left the TMO, the son of Chopra's publicist continued to be on Perusha. He was a tad defensive to me about his mother's identity when we spoke on the phone once, but obviously, his mother's professional (and likely personal) relationship with Chopra had not gotten him kicked off the program simply because of the choices of his mom and her professional clients. If there was a genuine vehemence on the part of the TMO itself, they would have found some reason to get him gone, don't you think? BTW, you never answered my question: Why do you suppose he hasn't republished it? [Chopra's autobiography] Irmeli:I got plugged into this thread by reading Barry's post, where he was wondering about the vehemence towards Chopra in the discussion by you and some others. I have no opinion about the republishing, because I have no background information. Sparaig: I just gave it to you: its out of print and has been since Chopra left the TMO. Irmeli:I don't understand, why you connect an adult man's doings and career choices to what his mother is doing. Are you saying that the rules on the Purusha and MD are such, that a person cannot stay there, if his or her parents are found to have careers that are unsuitable to the present TMO dogma. For example, the parent is a politician and a devout adherent of democracy. Irmeli:You've misunderstood what I said. The son of Chopra's publicist was still on Perusha for years after Chopra left. During a phone conversation he said you know my mom, I think... and I made the connection that I was talking to Muriel Nellis's son. Irmeli: Are you in a leading position on the Purusha, or why did you question the man about his mother's identity? Sparaig: I didn't. He volunteered the information since I had done publicity work for Chopra and had had several phone conversations with the guy's mom since she was Chopra's publicist after Carla Linton-Brown went back to school. Irmeli:I found it very odd that, when Chopra left the TMO, one was not anymore allowed to talk about him. Earlier he was talked about almost as much as MMY, and suddenly he or his books didn't exist anymore. The teachers actually behaved like he had never existed. Sparaig:That was a directive: since Chopra was no longer supporting the TMO, the TMO was no longer going to support him. Wish him well and move on. Irmeli:I had met this kind of behaviour earlier only in the former Soviet Union, and considered that kind of denial of history to be very pathological. Sparaig: But Chopra not mentioning TM or MMY in books that were COMMISSIONED by MMY isn't odd? Irmeli: In those earlier books I have read by Chopra, he is mentioning MMY. Lately I have not read Chopra's books. But considering how the TMO and MMY treated him after his departure, it is understandable. I would have done the same. Irmeli: You didn't answer this question of mine: Could you explain to me what emotions I'm projecting and on whom? Maybe you can help me find out some of my blind spots? Sparaig:You misread most of what I said. I understand that English is not your native language, but still, you misinterpretted everything to be opposite of what I said. This certainly implies a set of prejudices on your part to not only misunderstand what I said, but to misunderstand it in such a way as to support what you apparently believe. Irmeli: If I misunderstood you, could you kindly explain to me what you meant by this comment of yours in msg 87746: Irmeli: I think the vehemence is actually envy. Sparaig:Perhaps, or perhaps you're projecting your own feelings Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have thought for some time now that you are angry and hostile towards the TMO. Perhaps I am wrong. OTOH, your perception of how the TMO treats Chopra as anger and envy seems to be projection on your part since the TMO simply doesn't talk about Chopra any more than he talks about them. When Chopra left the TMO, I felt the reaction from the movement's part to be disgusting. What I heard at that time was of course second hand information, except my witnessing the TM-teacher's odd and ridiculous behaviour in not talking about Chopra and if talking the tone was VERY negative. At that time I felt Chopra behaved admirably, by continuing to give credit to MMY in his books and not saying a negative word about the TMO. But it was then. I think Chopra feels nowadays the same way as I do. I avoid to mention about my TM background, as the TMO has become so extreme cultist and odd. I don't remember exactly what kind of information I heard at the time of Chopra's departure, except some dirty lawsuits initiated by the TMO. It was a shock to me to observe how low level in moral functioning and reasoning MMY and the TMO had regressed to. As a result I stopped all my involvement with the movement for many years. Later I participated again on some weekend seminars, but I didn't feel quite comfortable. There were too many odd, even scary features in the movement. I tried to start a discussion on the problems I perceived on a Finnish chat group for TM-meditators. I expected an honest discussion, but never managed to create it. These people actually couldn't discuss with me. They just got very defensive, and started to throw dirty, low level insults on me, which is not too uncommon trait in some people here at FFL either. Luckily they banned me from the group. I have been unusually tolerant, all my other meditating friends had left the movement for good long ago for the same reasons I felt uncomfortable about. I don't expect people or organizations to be perfect, but I expect them to accept participating in a dialogue, and accept discussion and also answering difficult questions and claims. At that time I was angry, not anymore. I'm more just intellectually intrigued to follow the different phases and carryings-on of a cult, in which I have been involved in its earlier phases. I have learned a lot, which can be of practical use elsewhere also. I have participated to discussions of the crisis of the Muslim world, and the understanding gained through FFL has been really helpful. I felt practically all the time I was involved annoyed about MMY's way of leading his movement. But I appreciated a lot of the Vedic philosophy he, and his co-workers, brought out. The philosophy I have mainly felt to be fine. But not MMY's fundamentalist approach to it, neither his way of managing the movement. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition
Irmeli: I also feel it to be quite appropriate to create your own combination of old traditions, by taking from different traditions, what you feel to valuable in them. Moose: Thats fine. Just be careful in not assuming the same terms mean the same things across traditions. Lots of confusion and delusion arises, when people use such terms interoperably, IMO. Irmeli:A lot of confusion could be avoided, if people tried in discussions to define the key concepts they use. They often can be understood in many ways. In my mind I can conceive numerous definitions for enlightenment based on what I have understood from between the lines what different people might mean by it. The concept I is another amorphous expression. It may not be easy to define in an exact way, what you mean by it and what you include in it, but certainly very useful and clarifying even for oneself. Without that kind of definitions the `no I' discussions are waste of time. People argue of this topic suspecting that the other understands and perceives the concept I in a similar way than oneself. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In trying to think about why Chopra, who has been dissing MMY for years -- while getting rich on his spinoffs from TM -- would have a change of heart and try to make up (with lies, of course, we are talking about Deepack) for his past bad behavior, I'm thinking that Deepack, in some corner of his dim brain, realizes that MMY is about to die, and wants to make up for his disgusting behavior before Deepack also shuffles off -- in Deeppack's case, to that hell reserved for those who insult great saints and piggyback their greed and ambition on the knowledge they received from that saintly tradition. Good luck with that... More likely, he's aware that MMY isn't going to live all that much longer and he wants to establish himself as the Maharishi- expert that everyone in the media will come to. * Possible, but I think even somebody as cynical and stupid as Chopra must have some pangs of conscience, although he cannot find any real reconciliation through that cloud of arrogance he lives in. Right on ! He has fallen pray to his own greed obviously. But what about the so-called independent tm-teachers, are they not doing exactly the same thing ? Chopra was long after my time in the TM movement. I never knew him, and have never even gotten a vibe on him that inspired me to read one of his books. So I don't really understand the *vehemence* above. I mean, you've got people saying that they hope that he'll go to hell for essentially deciding to be his own man and put his energy into his own projects instead of continuing to shill for Maharishi. What gives? I have met Chopra a few times by participating in his seminars. Last time I think it was in Stockholm in 2002. I like him a lot. I think he is a person of great integrity and insight. I have a really good rapport with him. In the late 80's my participation in the TMO was mainly because of him. I lost my interest in the TMO, when Chopra left and I saw how the movement treated him. I think the vehemence is actually envy. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip I have met Chopra a few times by participating in his seminars. Last time I think it was in Stockholm in 2002. I like him a lot. I think he is a person of great integrity and insight. So you believe what he told the India Times, that the Beatles didn't leave MMY's ashram of their own accord because they thought he had been fooling around with a woman follower, but rather were thrown out because they were doing drugs? How could Chopra know about that? He was not in the TMO at that time. He probably has heard about it from someone, whose word he trusts. And I don't base my judgement about a person on a single detail like this. I look at general patterns in a person's behaviour. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: I have a really good rapport with him. In the late 80's my participation in the TMO was mainly because of him. I lost my interest in the TMO, when Chopra left and I saw how the movement treated him. How was that? He left and the movement ignored him. He rewrote his books to delete virtually all mention of TM and MMY and hasn't re- released Return of the Rishi since he left the TMO. What other famous person have you ever heard of who won't publish his previously published autobiography? Why do you suppose he hasn't republished it? I think the vehemence is actually envy. Sparaig: Perhaps, or perhaps you're projecting your own feelings. Irmeli: Could you explain to me what emotions I'm projecting and on whom? Maybe you can help me find out some of my blind spots? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beatles angels on earth
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: snip I have met Chopra a few times by participating in his seminars. Last time I think it was in Stockholm in 2002. I like him a lot. I think he is a person of great integrity and insight. So you believe what he told the India Times, that the Beatles didn't leave MMY's ashram of their own accord because they thought he had been fooling around with a woman follower, but rather were thrown out because they were doing drugs? How could Chopra know about that? He was not in the TMO at that time. He probably has heard about it from someone, whose word he trusts. But that person is apparently untrustworthy, since that information is pretty clearly false. So he doesn't seem to have the insight to question it. And I don't base my judgement about a person on a single detail like this. I look at general patterns in a person's behaviour. When a person says something that is patently untrue--whether deliberately or through lack of judgment--I begin to wonder about the truth of other things they've said. I have made myself several such mistakes. I have repeated without thinking too much someone's words I have found somewhat trustworthy. Maybe I find this feature in a person's character not so problematic, because I have precisely the same tendency myself. If I perceive somebody having been gullible or having told a lie, I would scrutinize more accurately his other claims. I draw conclusions only, when I see there a repeating pattern. IrmeliI have made myself several such mistakes. I have repeated without thinking too much someone's words I have found somewhat trustworthy. Maybe I find this feature in a person's character not so problematic, because I have precisely the same tendency myself. If I perceive somebody having been gullible or having told a lie, I would scrutinize more accurately his other claims. I draw conclusions only, when I see there a repeating pattern. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition
In this post there are some important observations of the value of tradition. My comments in between. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff no_reply@ wrote: You seem to be beyond MMY's teachings. Do you feel you have transcended his insights and have (re)cognized a newer or higher reality? Do you feel your insights are deeper and superior to his? Question for you: Why should you, or anyone else, use MMY and what he says or writes as the 'gold standard' for their spiritual development? I'm serious, not just being rhetorical... Well, I think tradition is valuable in clarifying insights and interpretation about ones map, path(sadhana) and experiences. Over the years, I have found many people getting quite confused and misled by simplistic understandings they have concocted themselves or absorbed from pseudo-teachers out side of any tradition. Not to say the holy tradition that MMY says he represents is the single ultimate gold standard. But it is one internally consistent standard that is based on a substantial amount of tradition, practices, milestones, research, traditional records of experience, and realized beings. Other traditons may be more substantial in all areas, however that doesn't diminsh the value of the guideposts MMY has cemented into the spiritual geography. Irmeli: MMY represents his interpretation of the holy tradition. The main problem with MMY is, that he says his interpretation is the only complete and pure one, the others are some ways flawed. This kind of understanding in itself is enough to place him in the fundamentalist category. It is also good to observe, that he is not respected and recognized by many influential vedic scholars. There also seems to be suspicions that at least some of those who recognize him, have been bought by money. Traditions are like guideposts. They provide useful maps and markers. Maybe not always interoperable between traditions, but consistent and useful within a tradition. Its sort of like scientific theories and paradigms. One experiment (one person's experience) does not create or substantiate scientific knowledge or theory. It takes many experiments, repeated by independent researchers, under diverse conditions, and examining many various ranges of observations, to create a sustained and accepted scientific model of how the world works. Spiritual traditions are similar. One persons experience, no matter how grand, does not map out the entire territory of spiritual growth. Nor the liklihood of this or that method on this or that aspirant. A spiritual tradition synthesizes the experiences of many diffferent types of people, under different conditions, over long periods of time, and creates a coherent model and standard accepted practices suitable for many -- not just one person. Such spiritual tradition are not created in one generation. It is not ad hoc. It is not made up as one or a group of yogis progress. It links individual experience with the experinces, sadhanas and roadmaps/views of many aspirants over many generations and centuries. To disgard all traditions, to make it up as one goes along, is in my observations over the years, usually quite foolish and unproductive. I have seen a fair amount of people delude themselves over the years. Irmeli: It is beneficial to study and follow a tradition, but in the following lies dangerous pitfalls also. The most seductive of them for many aspirants is starting to obey and follow a teacher or an organization in an unquestioning fashion having intense need to believe in the superiority of the leader and his path. A fundamentalist teacher usually encourages and favours this kind of behaviour. More beneficial would be if you could take from the teaching only the part you can with good conscience accept and is in line with your observations of reality. Blind following permits and bypass form your common sense and sound judgement. It makes possible to start act out your low minded impulses. Suppressed negative and disowned emotions and thought forms are a burden to our mind. Either you work slowly to uncover and transform those energies or you find justifications to act them out. Unquestioningly following gives that kind of justifications. As a fundamentalist you can make others to feel the fear or coercion, that was too much for you. And simultaneously feel to be in the service of a higher purpose. In the latter 70s, a prominent Golden Boy SIMS lecturer, Walter Belin (sp) and his wife, Margurite (long time int'l staffer) wrote a letter to MMY about a new guru they had met and were following, a South African businessman. MMY said, So the choice is clear, you can follow the ageless vedic tradition, our ancient holy tradition, or you can follow the Johanesberg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Value of Tradition
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson Irmeli.Mattsson@ wrote: In this post there are some important observations of the value of tradition. My comments in between. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff no_reply@ wrote: Irmeli: MMY represents his interpretation of the holy tradition. The main problem with MMY is, that he says his interpretation is the only complete and pure one, the others are some ways flawed. This kind of understanding in itself is enough to place him in the fundamentalist category. It is also good to observe, that he is not respected and recognized by many influential vedic scholars. There also seems to be suspicions that at least some of those who recognize him, have been bought by money. Moose: Reasonable points. They don't seem to contradict what I said, Not to say the holy tradition that MMY says he represents is the single ultimate gold standard. Moose: Traditions are like guideposts. They provide useful maps and markers. Maybe not always interoperable between traditions, but consistent and useful within a tradition. Its sort of like scientific theories and paradigms. One experiment (one person's experience) does not create or substantiate scientific knowledge or theory. It takes many experiments, repeated by independent researchers, under diverse conditions, and examining many various ranges of observations, to create a sustained and accepted scientific model of how the world works. Spiritual traditions are similar. One persons experience, no matter how grand, does not map out the entire territory of spiritual growth. Nor the liklihood of this or that method on this or that aspirant. A spiritual tradition synthesizes the experiences of many diffferent types of people, under different conditions, over long periods of time, and creates a coherent model and standard accepted practices suitable for many -- not just one person. Such spiritual tradition are not created in one generation. It is not ad hoc. It is not made up as one or a group of yogis progress. It links individual experience with the experinces, sadhanas and roadmaps/views of many aspirants over many generations and centuries. To disgard all traditions, to make it up as one goes along, is in my observations over the years, usually quite foolish and unproductive. I have seen a fair amount of people delude themselves over the years. Irmeli: It is beneficial to study and follow a tradition, but in the following lies dangerous pitfalls also. The most seductive of them for many aspirants is starting to obey and follow a teacher or an organization in an unquestioning fashion having intense need to believe in the superiority of the leader and his path. A fundamentalist teacher usually encourages and favours this kind of behaviour. More beneficial would be if you could take from the teaching only the part you can with good conscience accept and is in line with your observations of reality. Blind following permits and bypass form your common sense and sound judgement. It makes possible to start act out your low minded impulses. Suppressed negative and disowned emotions and thought forms are a burden to our mind. Either you work slowly to uncover and transform those energies or you find justifications to act them out. Unquestioningly following gives that kind of justifications. As a fundamentalist you can make others to feel the fear or coercion, that was too much for you. And simultaneously feel to be in the service of a higher purpose. Moose:Reasonable points. They don't seem to contradict what I said. Moose: In the latter 70s, a prominent Golden Boy SIMS lecturer, Walter Belin (sp) and his wife, Margurite (long time int'l staffer) wrote a letter to MMY about a new guru they had met and were following, a South African businessman. MMY said, So the choice is clear, you can follow the ageless vedic tradition, our ancient holy tradition, or you can follow the Johanesberg (sp) tradition. He laughed as did everyone for about five minutes. Irmeli: The situation could also be seen as a choice between a fundamentalist teacher unrecognised by important representatives of the tradition he represents and a more pragmatic teacher, who was better capable of integrating his teaching to modern reality, even if having less knowledge of vedic tradition. Moose:Ok. We can create any number of nice hypotheticals. Not to say a person of great purity and insight doesn't come along occasionally and total knowledge just unfolds within them with no help from tradition. But this is a soul beyond most, beyond the path and needs of a young SB Saraswati, Yogananda, etc. Usually its an avatar, like
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dalai Lama: Meditation as Therapy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, coshlnx coshlnx@ wrote: --- --- http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N73_1.php Another article: Science at the Crossroads by the Dalai Lama http://www.dalailama.com/page.8.htm --- End forwarded message --- This article is such a pleasure to read. In fact, it seems as if the Dalai Lama is picking up where MMY left off back in the 70's. This is the kind of reasoned, no-hype, generous discussion that I had thought the TMO would be leading to. MMY and all the hype must be doing something, but I would think that this style of conversation and research influences so many more people. Such different approaches to essentially the same stuff. I also enjoyed reading the article, as I have enjoyed many other texts by the Dalai Lama. In him I perceive a person with clarity of reason and compassion of heart and with capacity of integrating to a whole the modern scientific evolving world and ancient wisdom. He is ready to question ancient texts, if modern scientific empirical evidence shows otherwise. He has been capable of changing his position in the for him important issue of liberating Tibet from the occupation by China and accepts it now. He is humble and wise. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can the enlightened make mistakes?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- jim_flanegin jflanegi@ wrote: Where my mind stops is when I hear about people making 'mistakes'. What IS a mistake, anyway? I personally couldn't tell ya... Exactly. What is a mistake? It's simply a term used to indicate something we don't like. Last summer I looked back on how my life had unfolded, and I was thankful that for all the emotional pain I endured, the choices I made were the only reason I was happy, healthy, and still alive. Later on, the thought occurred to me that this was merely a value judgment and that it could have been just as perfect had I died. That's when I ditched all the mental masturbation about free will. Things happen exactly as they should. Why? Because that's the way they happened. Alex When something falls from one's hand to the floor, we perceive the occurrence as mistake. If not we wouldn't even pick the thing up. From a bigger perspective everything may be perfect as it is, but perceiving something as a mistake or error may activate changes in our behavioural patterns. My husband perceives me as somewhat careless. I myself usually don't see any problem with it. As long as I'm satisfied with my behaviour, there are very little chances for changes. But my husband may get even more irritated and then at some point I get frustrated about his irritation and perceive it as a mistake. And maybe at some point I may try to take his position and look at my patterns and see that I could pay a little more attention to some details I have felt to be unimportant. And only then there is some chances of becoming less sloppy. This is just a simple example how perceiving something as a mistake can lead to changes. Perceiving everything as perfect in daily life I feel to be a kind of mood making. Feeling frustrated about one's mistakes at best gives energy for a new start. I usually swear silently in my mind, when I perceive a mistake, and it helps to transform the frustration to renewed activity. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Intention revisited
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Vaj wrote: It proved to me that if the underlying and deepest motivation was not pure, the result would ultimately reflect this. Therefore it was always important to check your own motivation. It forms the basis of all action in the relative. Is there a way to retire an originating intention and start anew? Short of killing the entire entity that arose from the originating intention, that is. I wonder about this when I see flawed organizations that get their flaws from some aspect of the originating intention. Rhode Island, for instance. Seeing and understanding your underlying motive having defects in it, is in itself already a new start. This new insight starts slowly to put in motion a slightly different kind of action, with results that reflect the new understanding and insecurity about the less than pure motive. In many cases this first step may mean starting to put more attention on hiding your motives. In the long run however that structure will dissolve the part of the construction that was built on faulty premises. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Begging money and charity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing that's fascinating to me is the trickle- down craziness involved with this. It's not just a case of some lazy fucks realizing that there is an easy way to avoid working, and that it's called begging. That's just one side of the phenomenon and of the conditioning. The other side of the conditioning is seen in the *sponsors*, the people who have been taught that there is some *benefit* to themselves that accrues when they pay so that these guys and gals never have to work. It's a remarkably symbiotic relationship; one side of the equation couldn't exist without the other. I know that a lot of people here and in spiritual trips in general just assume that this is all a given, and that it's always worked this way -- people who have chosen a full-time spiritual career being supported by those who have money and have chosen a more householder path. I'm challenging the very *idea* because I really believe that it's a *bad* idea, and that most of the problems that one can find in *any* spiritual tradition spring from this assumption, and from this practice. Historically, the spiritual traditions in which the monks or clergy pay their own way in life, and are *not* supported by the rank and file members of the organization, seem to me to be much cleaner and spiritually healthier. Just *think* about it for a moment -- it's one of the biggest scams in human history. In almost every era and in every tradition, all that you had to do to avoid getting a job like everybody else was to claim to be spiritual and get other people to pay so that you could be spiritual full time. I'm open to the possibility that many of these full-time teachers might have done a few nice things for the world, but when you look at it objectively, it's really quite amazing that no one really challenges the status quo of this whole scene and questions it. The meme of the rank-and-file rabble paying for the lives of the spiritual elite is that taken for granted, that ingrained in the collective consciousness. This is healthy questioning. The kind of giving where you buy yourself a good conscience and a better feeling of yourself by the giving, makes me feel quite uncomfortable. It could be healthy to ask oneself: why do I need to buy myself a good conscience? A lot of developmental aid has been given to the developing countries, but how much has it really helped those people? Look at Africa? Could it be worse without the aid and interfering in the lives of those people by westerners in the name of charity. I am all for support for the poor and weak. Unfortunately this support often comes in a form that makes it possible for people to continue with the attitudes and lifestyle that has made them poor and weak. Basically the same applies for spiritual people. The idea of people in spiritual organizations living luxurious lives through actively collecting support money feels disgusting. Even more disgusting feels the present trend in many organizations to collect money to charity purposes and then actually use at least part of that money to empire building for your organization and your own luxurious life. Mother Theresa is often seen as an epitome of selfless giving. But was she really? She also powerfully preached against birth control. In other words she actively contributed to the situation that a lot of children are born to unbearable life-conditions. And then she created herself a halo by bringing a little bit relief to a few of those unfortunate beings. I have heard that Indian government doesn't like the work of her organization, because it attracts poor people to the big cities, which increases the problems of the slums. These people would be better off in their villages. We send food aid to people in hunger. And what is the result? These people breed like rabbits. The number of people living in unbearable conditions multiplies. And no incentive appears for them to change their values and attitudes and lifestyle, that has lead to their present problems. Of course I feel also bad about the idea of not helping those people. But open and honest evaluation of the situation may help in developing better means to help. And it may help in discriminating between the help organizations. I myself believe at the moment that the best way to help developing countries is, when governments give money to those governments in developing countries that do good work. And the private help organizations should at least try to co-operate with the governments of the developing countries. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a
[FairfieldLife] Commentaries on the shiva sutras (was Quantum Consciousness )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom T: From the shiva sutras third awakening 24. When a yogi, after developing awareness of God Consciousness, transcends the state of Turiya, he enters into Transcendental God Consciousness. 25. Such a yogi becomes one with Shiva. 26. For him the austerity is nothing else than the normal routine of physical life. 27. And for such a yogi the daily routine talk becomes the recitation of real mantra. 28. Such a yogi gives as alms to humanity his own knowledge of the Self. 29. The yogi, who commands the entire wheel of cognitive and active organs, is the only means of attaining knowledge of Transcendental God Consciousness. 30. For him the whole universe is the totality of his own energies. 31. Living in this world of ignorance or remaining in the Transcendental God Consciousness is the totality of one's own energies of consciousness. 32. Such a yogi, though apparently engrossed in the daily routine of life, is in no way separated from God Consciousness. 33. Because such a yogi perceives the states of pain and pleasure only superficially, they, in no case, affect his state of Supreme-Being-Consciousness. 34. Hence he is liberated from the states of pain and pleasure and is uniquely established in his own nature. 35. On the contrary, the one who feels the absence of God Consciousness in the states of pain and pleasure, is an individual soul and a victim of recurring births and deaths. 36. The one who stands aloof from differentiatedness becomes the creator and destroyer of the entire universe. 37. The energy of creating and destroying the whole universe comes within the experience of such a yogi just as an ordinary soul possesses the power to create and destroy during his dreaming state. 38. The state of Turiya God Consciousness, that comes into experience in the beginning and at the end of the other three states (waking, dreaming, and deep sleep), should be infused and transmitted into these three states by firmly establishing one's own awareness during these intervals - beginning and end thereof. 39. And by developing such a process, a yogi must transmit the God Consciousness not only into the three states of individuality but into the entire universe. 40. By the slight appearance of individual desire, one is carried far away from the state of God Consciousness. 41. By firmly establishing one's own Self in the state of Turiya, all desires disappear and individuality is lost into universality. 42. Such a yogi is liberated in life and as his body still exists, his is called bhuta-kanchuki - having his physical body as a mere covering just like an ordinary blanket. Hence he is supreme and one with the universal Self. 43. After remaining in this state of universal Transcendental God Consciousness, the functions of inhalation and exhalation automatically take place with the object that this whole universe of action and cognition is united in God Consciousness. 44. When one contemplates on the center of Universal Consciousness, what else remains there to be sought in the practice of prana, apana, and sushumna? 45. When a Shiva-yogi is completely established in God Consciousness, he experiences this state spontaneously within and without or both. The End.. There are a few serious defects in perception and understanding of higher states of consciousness and human evolving in points 35 and 36 in these sutras. According to # 35 becoming an individual soul means falling away from the grace of God Consciousness. Development in modern societies has been going towards greater individuation and towards relying on own judgement and discrimination . The modern welfare is based on this shift. Not becoming an individual soul has meant unquestioningly following the group and its traditions and following an absolute ruler. It has meant also the soothing experience of symbiosis and lack of responsibility of one's actions. Democracy isn't an option without individual souls. According to # 36 the one , who stays away from differentiatedness becomes the creator and destroyer of the entire universe. The creator of this point has clearly had a condition that we in modern times with our new discriminative capacity call megalomaniac. The evolving nature goes toward greater differentiatedness in spite of some groupsouls trying to resist this natural law that is the driving force of the manifest phenomenal world. Retranslation #36 to be more according the laws of nature would sound maybe something like this: The one who stays aloof from differetiatedness becomes a preserving force preventing too fast differentiation, and if this force becomes too strong it can destroy the world the person or group has influence over. Also the force of differentiation, if it becomes too strong can destroy the world. The key here is the balance
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: [nhnenews] Paula Zahn Now: 'Sex For Salvation?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a little booklet written by a Finnish clergyman Raimo Mäkelä. He has been working for the Finnish Established Church. The title of the book would be in English something like : The healthy mind as a mask. It was published in 2001. There he describes a certain personality type, which he calls the psychopath, or the narsissistic personality. His view is, apparently through his own difficult experiences, that people with this disorder abound inside the Churches, and also in important positions there. He sees the only way to avoid abuse and damage done by these people to be to learn to recognize those people, and not letting them get in leading positions. And if they have gotten in those positions and you recognize having one as your boss, it would be better to leave. He has written the concise booklet in order to improve people's discrimination in this respect. Many people have told the book was for them a real eye-opener. Almost everyone of us has experienced at some point serious frustration, or felt having been used, by people with those characteristics. These people most probably continue to exist, and they have very strong cravings for being seen as superior and for power. Because this condition is very common, I personally am suspicious of every person, who has created him/herself a situation, where he/she is seen as a superior being, whose actions are beyond our capacity of judgement. I'm also very suspicious of everyone, who has created himself a saintly image. In Finnish the word for saint is pyhimys. It is very close to the Finnish word ylimys, wich means aristrocrat. The word ylimys is derived from the adjective ylimielinen, which describes someone who considers himself to be superior to others and so he doesn't respect the others. Irmeli The old addage by Nietzsche, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wonder how many of those who abuse their power by using others to gratify their own desires start out that way? Perhaps the temptation is so great and the resistance so low by the object' that it is near impossible to resist. This is most certainly part of the truth. But it doesn't explain why the abusers often resort to very tricky manipulations and lies in order to get what they want? In spite of their positions the abuse is usually not easily done with open cards. It is not just a candy you can take almost by mistake, when your attention is somewhere else. Lot's of planning, hiding and lies are needed. And these people also nowadays risk their careers, which makes them feel wanting to shout: Damn Democracy. Irmeli Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: [nhnenews] Paula Zahn Now: 'Sex For Salvation?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The old addage by Nietzsche, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I wonder how many of those who abuse their power by using others to gratify their own desires start out that way? Perhaps the temptation is so great and the resistance so low by the object' that it is near impossible to resist. Irmeli:This is most certainly part of the truth. But it doesn't explain why the abusers often resort to very tricky manipulations and lies in order to get what they want? Barry:You haven't specified any examples of what you consider tricky manipulations. Please do so. Irmeli:This thread started with an aricle Sex for Salvation, where the bishop promised salvation for the woman if she had sex with him. He also told her that the rules against adultery are for ordinary people only, he, and she with him, will be above those rules. I cannot believe that the bishop had ever done any serious self-examination or introspection on these claims. He was using these claims to get want he wanted to justify himself his actions. Irmeli: In spite of their positions the abuse is usually not easily done with open cards. Barry: In a spiritual context, I'm going to have to disagree with you. In almost every case I've ever seen of abuse of power by someone in a position of authority in a spiritual context, they really didn't have to work very hard to deceive anyone. The victims were lining up right and left, ready and willing to be fleeced, because their own desires were being pandered to. For example, if you delve into cases of a spiritual teacher sleeping with a student, in almost *every* case what you'll find -- in addition to a teacher who couldn't keep his dick in his pants -- is a student who felt flattered at being seduced or actively par- ticipated in the seduction because it makes her feel more special. The teacher may be telling the student a few lies to get into her pants, but the student in most cases *wants* to hear those lies. It's a cooperative effort, a symbiosis of mutual deception. Irmeli:With open cards I mean not trying to hide the relationship from others. With open cards I understand also the bishop not trying to act a role of a pious guide and a loyal husband, when he is not. But I'm with you with the understanding that the woman is a co-creator of the situation. I just expect the leader and teacher to behave in a more responsible way than the student. If the other way around, the woman should be in the leading position. Irmeli:It is not just a candy you can take almost by mistake, when your attention is somewhere else. Lot's of planning, hiding and lies are needed. Barry: Again, I disagree completely. I think this is just an attempt to make the teachers the bad guys and the students the poor, innocent victims. I would suggest that in many if not most cases the victim was per- fectly happy to be lied to as long as they felt more special than people outside the group or than other students within the group. It's just human nature, and teachers merely take advantage of it. Irmeli:I agree fully with this. The main problem here is that the teacher pretends himself to be capable of acting from a higher moral level. His getting to his high position has probably become possible through this pretending and lying. This pretension must have become an established habit much before he got to the position of a bishop. It is not just that power corrupts. Also corrupted people often get into important positions using corruption and lies as they climb ladders Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: [nhnenews] Paula Zahn Now: 'Sex For Salvation?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest that in many if not most cases the victim was per- fectly happy to be lied to as long as they felt more special than people outside the group or than other students within the group. It's just human nature, and teachers merely take advantage of it. I agree fully with this. The main problem here is that the teacher pretends himself to be capable of acting from a higher moral level. If this happens, I think we're agreed that it's not a good thing. It wouldn't be a good thing if the reacher really *was* enlightened. His getting to his high position has probably become possible through this pretending and lying. This pretension must have become an established habit much before he got to the position of a bishop. It is not just that power corrupts. Also corrupted people often get into important positions using corruption and lies as they climb ladders Barry:I'm not convinced of this. I've seen a lot of people lose it once they *got* to a position in which a lot of people were focusing their attention on them. I tend to think more occultly, and believe that this focus is what took them out. In many cases the students were *expecting* the teachers to act like little gods, and the teachers themselves were not strong enough to resist the role that was being projected onto them by the students, so they went along with it. Once they start down that path, it's very difficult to turn around. Irmeli: I agree with this. The corruption may be more often happening this way. People's expectations are probably the biggest villain here. The other is the leader's attachment to his position and need to keep it by all means. The good news is that nowadays the corrupted means are starting to fail the leaders more and more often. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: FW: [nhnenews] Paula Zahn Now: 'Sex For Salvation?'
There is a little booklet written by a Finnish clergyman Raimo Mäkelä. He has been working for the Finnish Established Church. The title of the book would be in English something like : The healthy mind as a mask. It was published in 2001. There he describes a certain personality type, which he calls the psychopath, or the narsissistic personality. His view is, apparently through his own difficult experiences, that people with this disorder abound inside the Churches, and also in important positions there. He sees the only way to avoid abuse and damage done by these people to be to learn to recognize those people, and not letting them get in leading positions. And if they have gotten in those positions and you recognize having one as your boss, it would be better to leave. He has written the concise booklet in order to improve people's discrimination in this respect. Many people have told the book was for them a real eye-opener. Almost everyone of us has experienced at some point serious frustration, or felt having been used, by people with those characteristics. These people most probably continue to exist, and they have very strong cravings for being seen as superior and for power. Because this condition is very common, I personally am suspicious of every person, who has created him/herself a situation, where he/she is seen as a superior being, whose actions are beyond our capacity of judgement. I'm also very suspicious of everyone, who has created himself a saintly image. In Finnish the word for saint is pyhimys. It is very close to the Finnish word ylimys, wich means aristrocrat. The word ylimys is derived from the adjective ylimielinen, which describes someone who considers himself to be superior to others and so he doesn't respect the others. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NHNE News List Current Members: 1402 Subscribe/unsubscribe/archive info at the bottom of this message. SEX FOR SALVATION? Paul Zahn Now, on CNN, USA January 19, 2006 http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/19/pzn.01.html ZAHN: I want to warn you now that you may not want the kids in the room for this next story. It deals with some disturbing allegations of sex, trust and betrayal. The central figures in the story, a major church in a big city, its respected leader, and a young woman who turned there for spiritual comfort after a crisis. Here is David Mattingly with tonight's Eye Opener. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MONA BREWER, FORMER CHAPEL HILL HARVESTER CHURCH MEMBER: And she died when she was 18 in a car accident suddenly. And I really had a real experience with God at that time. DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Twenty years ago and just a teenager, a young Mona Brewer was reeling from the death of her sister and turned to God. She found comfort in the welcoming arms of the Chapel Hill Harvester Church near Atlanta http://www.col.tv/. At the time, it was one of the nation's growing charismatic mega- churches, with thousands of members led by the influential Bishop Earl Paulk. BISHOP EARL PAULK, CHAPEL HILL HARVESTER CHURCH: I want you to praise God with us today. BREWER: He had a -- a fresh word from God every time he came to the pulpit, which was several times a week. And it was amazing, you know, that God spoke to him such -- on such a frequency. And we were taught that spiritual authority was -- your level of spiritual authority was according to, you know, your revelation from God, or the things that God revealed to a person. And he was -- we were taught he was a prophet and an apostle in the church. MATTINGLY: Mona says she came to view Paulk, a married father and grandfather, as a holy messenger of the lord selected by God to speak for the almighty. And, over time, Bishop Paulk's church became her life. Mona became a teacher in the church school, a soloist in the church choir. And, at age 27, she even married an associate church pastor, a union blessed by Paulk himself, a man she believed so close to God that his words could never be questioned. BREWER: There were signs on the walls at the church. They didn't put scriptures on the wall. They put his sayings, his quotations. And one of them was, The kingdom of God is built in trust. And we were taught that we were to trust our spiritual authority, and we were taught not to question it. MATTINGLY: And so it went for years, Mona says, until, one day, Paulk asked for a meeting with her. It was a request that left her both elated and curious. BREWER: I was just overwhelmed, because that was such a great opportunity. Nobody got to do that. I mean, he was awesome. I mean, everybody wanted to talk to him. And he just invited me to his office to talk to him for a few minutes. And that was really incredible. (MUSIC) MATTINGLY: She says this man she respected so much, it turns out, had been moved by her
[FairfieldLife] Re: The great lie of Quantum Physics and Consciousness
I have experienced many odd coincidences, that could be also explained as just coincidences. I however think I have too many of them and many of those really don't feel like a coincidences, even if some I see as such. For a few years ago I was participating a vedic recitation weekend course by the TMO in Estonia in Tallinn. When I was walking on Saturday morning from my hotel to the course place, I realized I don't have a notebook and on TM courses you don't have those available for the course participants. About five minutes later I saw in front of my feet on the pavement a notebook, picked it up and saw that it was unused and clean, and took it. Years ago, when my sons where 2 and 3 years old, and we lived in an apartment, a thought appeared that it would be good for the boys to spend the summer in the countryside. However at that time we had not enough money to hire a summer cottage. And so I dropped the idea. A week after that my husband's colleague at work asked him if he wants to hire a very cheap, but nice cottage, which he did. My husband did not know of my thoughts about a summer place. And we spent there many summers. It was the only time someone has offered us a summer cottage and the only occasion, we where in need of one. What the physical reality mechanism behind these occurrences is I don't know. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A common story told to us on TM-courses - was about the meditator that wished for an apple and suddenly the apple was in his hand. I have never experienced such a thing, but I think from my mind it is possible from the consciousness to create material things. Deepak Chopra has explained it in a rational way. Everything starts with a vibration who creates a sound which creates a form. Ingegerd --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought that the connection that the TMO made to quantum physics was always just a cute little analogy and nothing more. Never took it seriously and I always hoped no one else would either. Beyond being an analogy and using the platform of quantum mechanics to serve as an illustration for how consicousness works, I never saw an actual connection between the working of the mind and consciousness and physics. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File Under: TMO lies and marketing ploys; Boomeritis Hinduism; Pseudo- advaita Answers from biologist and physicist Ken Wilber. http://www.tinyurl.com/cmay6 The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove God, does the Tao find proof in quantum realities? Answer: Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the last thirty years than has come from quantum physics Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have dominated the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism. #1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike Newtonian physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving at slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in which a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's the funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the measurement that the electron actually does show up. Certain writers and theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of this idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in which we qwaff reality into existence. Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for the former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the original writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum and relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one of them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual realities in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of their discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found themselves face to face with those realities that physics categorically could not explain. Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that the act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at the quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did not believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief requires the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or boomeritis, of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: The great lie of Quantum Physics and Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have had the same experience many times - and without thinking what it is, I have used it as a technique for many years. If I really want something seriously, a job, need for money, whatever, I wish and forget - and the wishes is fullfilled in some way or another. I do not know the mechanisms, but it works. One of the strangest things that happened to me, was a winter day, when I walked in the city, and I realized that a yogi was walking with me, barefooted and without much cloths. He was very powerfull, and filled me with a lot of energy. Then he disappeared. When I came home, I found the letter from the TMOs lawyer threathen to sue me. If I should describe the Yogi. he looked like Tat Wala Baba - maybe Hanuman. I do not know. Ingegerd I have had also similar experiences of feeling somebody's presence very near me. Earlier I could also sometimes see their physical form as a light body. I have become a grandmother a few months ago. My son and his wife kept the boy's name secret before the christening. I had not a clue, what his name will be. The day before the christening my mother called me in the morning and told me that she had seen a very vivid dream, that felt totally real. In the dream the boy had already a name and she told me what it was. The dream felt so real that my mother was quite certain it will be his name. The next day in the church, when I heard that the name my mother mentioned actually was given to the boy, I first felt stunned and then thrilled. Many people present tried to explain this as a coincidence or a good guess. I later calculated the likelihood of guessing right and it was not very big. I think that these kind of occurrences are much more common that the likelihood of coincidences would permit. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have experienced many odd coincidences, that could be also explained as just coincidences. I however think I have too many of them and many of those really don't feel like a coincidences, even if some I see as such. For a few years ago I was participating a vedic recitation weekend course by the TMO in Estonia in Tallinn. When I was walking on Saturday morning from my hotel to the course place, I realized I don't have a notebook and on TM courses you don't have those available for the course participants. About five minutes later I saw in front of my feet on the pavement a notebook, picked it up and saw that it was unused and clean, and took it. Years ago, when my sons where 2 and 3 years old, and we lived in an apartment, a thought appeared that it would be good for the boys to spend the summer in the countryside. However at that time we had not enough money to hire a summer cottage. And so I dropped the idea. A week after that my husband's colleague at work asked him if he wants to hire a very cheap, but nice cottage, which he did. My husband did not know of my thoughts about a summer place. And we spent there many summers. It was the only time someone has offered us a summer cottage and the only occasion, we where in need of one. What the physical reality mechanism behind these occurrences is I don't know. Irmeli --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ingegerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A common story told to us on TM-courses - was about the meditator that wished for an apple and suddenly the apple was in his hand. I have never experienced such a thing, but I think from my mind it is possible from the consciousness to create material things. Deepak Chopra has explained it in a rational way. Everything starts with a vibration who creates a sound which creates a form. Ingegerd --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought that the connection that the TMO made to quantum physics was always just a cute little analogy and nothing more. Never took it seriously and I always hoped no one else would either. Beyond being an analogy and using the platform of quantum mechanics to serve as an illustration for how consicousness works, I never saw an actual connection between the working of the mind and consciousness and physics. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File Under: TMO lies and marketing ploys; Boomeritis Hinduism; Pseudo- advaita Answers from biologist and physicist Ken Wilber. http://www.tinyurl.com/cmay6 The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove God, does the Tao find proof in quantum realities? Answer: Categorically
[FairfieldLife] Re: the false guru test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just realized that this whole discussion of a false guru is nonsense. Of what purpose are all these criteria? Are these to be used to select a guru? No, not as they are written. They are simply an attempt by a mind to position itself in relationship to a narrative it likes regarding gurus. They have an ideal guru in mind and compare and judge every flesh and blood guru to this one. It's really nonsense and no practical function. Just mind fluff (very sticky indeed!). The only way to see if a guru is of value is to involve yourself in their teaching for an honest amount of time. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't, move on. Buddha didn't disparage the teachers he studied with and found inadequate to his enlightenment. He just moved on. These teachers had a value for other people, not for him. MMY has had great value for many people. Many people still gain value from him. Many have moved on. It is what it is. To lock yourself into a conceptual model of a perfect guru is just silliness. Like wishing for the perfect mate or mother or father. A sign of psychological immaturity, isn't it? This discussion is not nonsense. It can be crucially important information to some people in their spiritual navigation. Few people select their guru based solely on these criteria. A strong pull towards a certain person is probably the most important criteria. The understanding that the teacher may not be perfect or even honest, while he is capable of transmitting the infinite value, maybe very useful. When you are aware of this fact, I think it becomes possible to receive from the guru just the infinite value and not adopting the other stuff or adopting it selectively. You may also become capable of resisting getting bound by the guru or resisting expectations of donating money etc. Having this kind of understanding makes it also easier to leave the guru, when you have learned, what you needed. The gurus with less evolved personalities are manipulative and try often to control the devotees and require them to make promises of loyalty to them and `their techniques'. When you have clarity about these features, you are not anymore so easily intimidated by the guru with the consequences of leaving him or criticising him. If a guru makes such threats he is really a very low level person, whom it would be better to leave behind. When I started more seriously doing physical workout, I chose a gym where the athletes exercised. I enjoyed very much their presence and tuned into their way of using their body and muscles. I was not interested in adopting their world view or attitudes and that didn't happen either. But most probably doing workout in that kind of company was quite helpful to me. At least I consider myself to be a sort of athlete too nowadays. I personally consider a guru to be false if there is no personal contact with him. One should be capable of discussing one's issues and doubts personally with the guru on regular basis. If there is no such contact there is no real guru/devotee relationship. In that situation the so called `guru' is primarily an object of idealization. And then his function is more to fill up your inner emptiness and to strengthen the defences against perception of the internal denial of certain aspects of one's personality. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Observing Guru Dev's Birthday
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lupidus108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Welcome back Lups! Where you been, boyo? Just been throughly fed up at all the garbage in here that's all :-) I'm just curious: have you ever got fed up by your own carbage? I have got fed up by your carbage. Especially when you have sent me private slander e-mails. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Keeping Things Quiet (was Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bluecabbagerose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 12/5/05 1:14 PM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 12/3/05 11:42 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, they're quite private, even secretive. Maharishi isn't people. But WHY do they talk about it with YOU? They've talked about it with other people. They're just not running to the newspapers or setting up a web site. Patiently: but why are they talking about it at all? Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself that question. Don't the have a right to? Are they under some moral obligation to remain silent all their lives? That question, Why are they talking about it at all? says a lot about a very prevalent trend/teaching in the TM movement that I don't think is positive. Don't focus on the negative. Don't talk about those unpleasant things. Ever hear those phrases? In the case of the TMO, it's like the professor in the Wizard of Oz saying Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. There's something to hide. Still haven't answered my question... I thought Rick answered it perfectly in another post. Why NOT talk about it? It is a painful life experience a number of women have experienced. Why should they keep quiet about it? Why continue to protect the perpetrator by remaining silent? Being able to talk about a painful experience, especially after having kept it secret for many years, is a very common way to begin the healing process. Ever hear of the term, Get something off my chest? There are a few lines I often repeat to myself when I think of the dear friends I have unloaded on over the years: Joys when extended will always increase, And griefs when divided are hushed into peace. Talking about painful experiences is an incredibly great way to heal them. IS it an incredibly great way to heal? Actually, I don't know the timelines for when the events took place (allegedly) or when they allegedly told people about them, but Rick said something about months later in at least some of the cases. It is a great way to heal. Especially for you it could do miracles. Just start exposing us your little secrets and maybe one day you could enjoy life without Prozac! Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Keeping Things Quiet (was Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bluecabbagerose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 12/5/05 1:14 PM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 12/3/05 11:42 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: on 12/3/05 3:25 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, they're quite private, even secretive. Maharishi isn't people. But WHY do they talk about it with YOU? They've talked about it with other people. They're just not running to the newspapers or setting up a web site. Patiently: but why are they talking about it at all? Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself that question. Don't the have a right to? Are they under some moral obligation to remain silent all their lives? That question, Why are they talking about it at all? says a lot about a very prevalent trend/teaching in the TM movement that I don't think is positive. Don't focus on the negative. Don't talk about those unpleasant things. Ever hear those phrases? In the case of the TMO, it's like the professor in the Wizard of Oz saying Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. There's something to hide. Still haven't answered my question... I thought Rick answered it perfectly in another post. Why NOT talk about it? It is a painful life experience a number of women have experienced. Why should they keep quiet about it? Why continue to protect the perpetrator by remaining silent? Being able to talk about a painful experience, especially after having kept it secret for many years, is a very common way to begin the healing process. Ever hear of the term, Get something off my chest? There are a few lines I often repeat to myself when I think of the dear friends I have unloaded on over the years: Joys when extended will always increase, And griefs when divided are hushed into peace. Talking about painful experiences is an incredibly great way to heal them. IS it an incredibly great way to heal? Actually, I don't know the timelines for when the events took place (allegedly) or when they allegedly told people about them, but Rick said something about months later in at least some of the cases. It is a great way to heal. Especially for you it could do miracles. Just start exposing us your little secrets and maybe one day you could enjoy life without Prozac! Irmeli What, like I should talk about the drunken woman I date-raped when I was about 22? THere's durned little about my past I haven't faced at one time or another, as far as I can tell. You have other secrets also. Something that is happening at the present day and also something concerning your writing and you are hiding those things from us. Anyway you had a very good start. Congratulations. Just go on with your revelations! Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Keeping Things Quiet (was Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yer just a plain nut. Its quite obvious that you have some kind of anger and pain that can only be appeased by mocking other people's pain and guilt under the guise of requesting inner revelations. I think my husband would agree with you! Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Irmeli Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point here is that one's credilbility lies not in some sort of objective criteria we can all agree upon. These allegations of sexual advances and/or acts by MMY are believed by some and denied by others. A lot of it has to do with our own concept of what and who MMY is to us. Frankly, I see the sexual allegations as true because of my own belief/experience in the credibility of the accusers. I still also find MMY to be an amazing man/guru who has been the catalyst for profound changes in my consciousness. Why he's poking around in the bushes of CP's is beyond me! Irmeli: Dr Pete I find really intriguing your understanding about MMY and enlightenment. You have explained many times how in enlightenment there is no `I'. And you have explained many times how you consider MMY to be an enlightened blazing Self, although he is also narcissistic and goofy in the personality department. When you say MMY to be an amazing man/guru, do you mean the narcissistic personality department? You couldn't refer to the `I' or self department, if there is no `I'? Or could you? In a state of localized conceptual and intellectual confusion I'm waiting for your answer. Peter:I wouldn't want to leave you localized in conceptual and intellectual confusion! MMY has a localized value and an unbounded value to his being as everyone else does. MMY's personality is just that, a personality influenced/created by his unique and shared cultural experiences. It has its narcissitic traits as both you and I have talked about. But then there is an infinite value which is completely awake to itself. In most others this infinite value is only partially awake to itself. For what ever reason (dharma, karma, frequent high colonics), in MMY's presence, this infinite value completely dominates. Any finite value of the personality is experienced as false and insignificant in this context of infinity. The finite value has a dream-like falsenes to it: it's only a thought in this huge infinity. I have the same experience with SSRS. The only authentic difference between MMY and SSRS is the personality. SSRS is sweet as MMY has called him. He's a really nice guy. Very down to earth, open and friendly. But the infinite value in both of them is experienced in exactly the same way. There is no difference between the two. This infinity eats any boundary, any difference (it's poison, meditators should watch out for it!). So for me MMY is both this personality and infinity. Did that help? Thank you for your thought out response. Your account makes sense to me. Have you seen this strong infinite value in some other persons than MMY and SSRS? I remember you having said that you don't perceive it in Ammachi. I did perceive that value rather strongly present in her. Are there possibly still some other persons, in whom you have sensed that kind of strong presence? A few years ago I saw an interview in TV. The young man interviewed there immediately captivated my attention, while I didn't know what the program was about. The man had a strong and innocent radiance in his face. He had deep blue eyes with strong cosmic infinity in his look and light curly hair coming to the shoulders. The first impression was: there is something angel like in that man. I started to listen to the interview. I found the man was a murderer, who had just been released from prison. He was there telling, how he was now a totally changed man. I was first impressed. But after listenening to his story a little bit longer, I realized that it all had happened too easily. The story the man was telling was most probably not true. More likely the young man was a full blown psychopath. So this mixture of the infinite value together with different kinds of personalities is really an enigma and can confuse people thoroughly. At least it is good to remember that the presence of the infinite value in a person doesn't make him a better person in relation to others, but he in spite of that may be capable of transmitting that value to others. The thing that has caused a lot of confusion in me with your expressions is because you apparently mean by no `I' actually the infinite value strongly present in a person. I again understand `I' to be the subject, the integrating property of sensations, emotions and thoughts to a whole with a continuity in a person. When this function fails people become severely insane, and when it is weak the person needs continuous confirmation of one's value and `I' from outside, which often means narcissism. When I look back at my own development the `I' has become clearly stronger: that is the integrating
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gotcha Games
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect Judy's high minded, passive agressive response will be Well, if you don't care about lying and distortions on this list, and life in general, well, well, I feel sorry for you. No, we don't care about what you interpret endlessly as lying and distortions. We have a brian, we can make our own assessments. Ha! You said brian! instead of brain. Gotcha!!! Ha Ha Ha! No, Brian is the name of the main voice inside my head. Of course there is also Fred, Omar, Jean-Luc, Astrid, Ramur and Closters. What are the names of your voices. John is the most compassionate and loving voice and who is practically all the time present. Probaly John is composed of many different entities. I just perceive him as one.Then there is About. He only announces his approval by saying 'about' in a matter of fact fashion. Then there were earlier also female 'Good Lord' voices that were very hypocritical. The other voices are more secretive of their names or I don't just accept any nimes. They are just anonyms even if there are anons with many different qualities and personalities.Sometimes I can witness 2 or 3 of them having a dialogue in my mind. No wonder I rarely listen to radio or watch TV. All the voices speak English, which has clearly improved my English skills. They are also quite creative, and eagerly suggest different responses, when I write for example at FFL. My job is just to choose between the different suggestions. Quite handy. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hurdy Gurdy Man revealed
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point here is that one's credilbility lies not in some sort of objective criteria we can all agree upon. These allegations of sexual advances and/or acts by MMY are believed by some and denied by others. A lot of it has to do with our own concept of what and who MMY is to us. Frankly, I see the sexual allegations as true because of my own belief/experience in the credibility of the accusers. I still also find MMY to be an amazing man/guru who has been the catalyst for profound changes in my consciousness. Why he's poking around in the bushes of CP's is beyond me! Dr Pete I find really intriguing your understanding about MMY and enlightenment. You have explained many times how in enlightenment there is no `I'. And you have explained many times how you consider MMY to be an enlightened blazing Self, although he is also narcissistic and goofy in the personality department. When you say MMY to be an amazing man/guru, do you mean the narcissistic personality department? You couldn't refer to the `I' or self department, if there is no `I'? Or could you? In a state of localized conceptual and intellectual confusion I'm waiting for your answer. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Are the Pundits coming?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that you're all a bunch of enlightened guys, you all shure give the appearance of having an unhealthy worship (attachment) to linear thinking... And you seem to justify yourself cynical, crooked and tricky thinking by calling it `enlightened' nonlinear thinking. `Ends justify means' seem also to belong to your toolkit as an high performer. Irmeli Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
