[FairfieldLife] Re: Open Source Spiritual Advice - The Spiritual Slacker Detector
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: OK, as a free gift to everyone here, I pass along some invaluable spiritual advice. It's not original with me, and is passed along the way I received it, as open source. You may use it without fee or license, and may pass it along to others if you find it useful. You may even take the original advice source code and modify it as you wish, and pass along the result, *as long as you keep it open source*, and do not attempt to profit from it. It's a very simple test by which you can *instantly* detect whether the person you are speaking with -- in person or on the Internet -- is a spiritual slacker. And it's foolproof. Before we start, it will help to establish a baseline, and define what I mean by spiritual slacker (SS). For the purposes of this free advice post, when I refer to someone as a SS, I mean: Someone who speaks authoritatively or with conviction or as if they were speaking the 'truth' about something *when they have never experienced the thing they're talking about personally*. So, now that the term is defined, how do you go about *detecting* someone like this? Utterly simple. When they have finished making their pronouncements about the latest thing they're making pronouncements about, ask one simple question: TELL ME/US ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SUBJECT. Then shut up and wait. If the person you are addressing *can* reply to this question with an actual experience that they have had or that they have witnessed, you are dealing with someone who has at the very least been there, done that. The fact that they *have*, in fact, personally experienced the thing they're talking about does not IMO make their opinion any better than anyone else's, but at least you know that you're not dealing with a spiritual slacker. ANY OTHER ANSWER TELLS YOU YOU'RE DEALING WITH A SPIRITUAL SLACKER. For example: * If the SS in question has claimed to know What MMY teaches or claimed to know something about the inner workings of the TM movement, any other answer than personal, long-term experience working with MMY and *in* the TMO identifies that person as a SS. * If the SS in question has been making pronouncements about the real nature of higher states of conscious- ness (such as CC, GC, or UC, in MMY's terminology) and has never experienced them personally, you are dealing with a SS. * If the person replies by invoking authority and quoting scripture or Someone Else's Opinion at you as if the person being quoted *is* an authority, you are dealing with a SS. * If the person quotes a book he/she has read, or a tape they have watched or listened to, but has never experienced the subject being discussed themselves, you're dealing with a SS. * When someone makes pronouncements about siddhis or miracles as if they know the truth about them, but has never witnessed any or performed them themselves, you are *by definition* dealing with a SS. * If the person reacts strongly by trying to denigrate the person asking the question, while *avoiding* the question, you're dealing with a SS. * If the person trots out reports from other people as if they supported the claim, but cannot report *from their own experience*, you're dealing with a SS. * And so on... It's a simple test, and IMO foolproof. It doesn't help to determine the truth of the subject being discussed, but it *does* help you identify who you're dealing with. There are a lot of people -- especially on the Internet -- who seem to feel that they have the right to weigh in on discussions about subjects they have no personal, subjective experience with. In fact, many of them view this as some kind of absolute or divine right, as if their position as an armchair mystic who has only read about or heard about the subject *qualified* them to weigh in on it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. You've either paid your dues or you haven't. You've either been there, done that or you have not. If you *haven't* paid your dues, if you *haven't* ever been there, done that, that does not necessarily IMO make your argument or your POV false, but it does indicate something interesting about your ethical standards and your sense of reality. In discussions of spiritual experience, I like talking to people who have actually *had* those experiences. I am less interested in those who have only heard about those experiences. *Especially* when the latter make near-absolute pronouncements about the truth of their POV or their right to express it *as* a pronouncement. This is the reason I have tried to say nothing negative about the interviews in Rick's Buddha at the Gas Pump series. I may find many of the interviews not terribly interesting for other reasons, but these people are actually *speaking from experience*. Good on them. And good on Rick for
[FairfieldLife] New Sidhas?
Whatever became of the 10,000 new Sidhas in Central and South America? I though I had heard there was a big course happening down there within the past few months.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Sidhas?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: What to hear, they are meditating! Really? Huh? I will word my questions more carefully next time.
[FairfieldLife] Website Gita
A few weeks ago I went on a website that was referenced here in FFL. That website had .pdf files that contained Maharishi's commentary on the Gita that went beyond Chapter 6. Do any of you recall what that website might be? Thanks in advance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Most basic Vedic biija?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: Most basic as you know is merely Ah then Aum then Em Then Im Ra Ri Ree and so on. You already know this quite well. Yah? Wayyy! I knew a girl named Inga when I was young. Later, when I got old, I knew her again as my own mind. - Original Message - From: cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com Perhaps one of the most basic Vedic biijas (beejas) is 'agni' backwards?? I am the walrus and Paul is dead
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bhoja's comment on YS II 55
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: shrii bhojadevaviracita-paata�jalayogashaastrasuutravRttiH II 55 (last sentence): tadayaM yogo yamaniyamaadibhiH praaptabiijabhaava aasanapraaNaayaamair an.kuritaH pratyaahaareNa puSpito dhyaanadhaaraNaasamaadhibhiH phaliSyati... Attempt at an extremely free translation: So, this yoga gets its seeds from yama, niyama (and stuff: aadhibhiH), sprouts with aasana and praaNaayaama, blossoms in pratyaahaara and shall bear fruit with dhyaana, dhaaraNaa and samaadhi?? (Why does he have the last three an.gas in a wrong order??) My thoughts exactly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A prediction on the heels of the apparent win of Prop 8
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The problem with that is any particular majority religion could get the direct ability as a collective to run legislatures and institute their doctrines as public policy. In Utah for example, the Mormon church could establish a theocracy [which they attempted to do in the 19th century under Brigham Young until the Feds put a stop to it under the threat of military intervention]. That is sort of what the cannibalists...I mean Christians have done concerning other religions. They control the show now. It was factions of Christianity that was the problem when the constitution was written. Now with our pluralistic society we have multi-religious issues unimaginable by our founding fathers. Judging by how much hatred was spewed on Obama for being a secret Muslim, I think we have a long way to go. Let's use some of the tax money from religions to support religious education and tolerance. They can write off the amounts they spend on charity just as we do, to avoid taxes. But exempting them from taxes elevates their beliefs above the common good, and I don't buy that. So you have an imaginary friend...you still gotta pitch in like the rest of us. I vehemently disagree, Curtis. Strictly enforcing the separation of church and state [which has been practically done away with lately] is the solution. As I suggested, taxing them gives religious institutions the right to access to directly running the government according to *their* religion and legislating *their* doctrines as public policy for everyone else. Why is it anyone's business who marries who?
[FairfieldLife] political humor
These are funny regardless which side of the fence you are on. Even if you are sitting on the fence. palinaspresident.com (make sure you scroll over the light switch among the other items) http://minimovie.com/film-128454-Dancing With the Political Stars
[FairfieldLife] Re: political humor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Paul! The URL was lacking hyphens. Should be this: http://minimovie.com/film-128454-Dancing-with-the-political-stars or http://tinyurl.com/3pa5ax Kind of biased toward the Democrats, if you ask me! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, paultrunk paultrunk@ wrote: These are funny regardless which side of the fence you are on. Even if you are sitting on the fence. palinaspresident.com (make sure you scroll over the light switch among the other items) http://minimovie.com/film-128454-Dancing With the Political Stars How are you Pat? If you watch the minimovie you will see that there is a hilarious spoof on Hillary you can watch. I believe it is called Hillary Humps. It is a good laugh regardless of how you lean.
