from:"tartbrain"



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
   In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince  
   anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he's 
   not around, but it makes it hard to have realistic 
   schedules.
  
  Is there anyone else this reminds you of? Class...?
  :-)
 
 Absolutely. Interestingly enough, however, who it
 reminded me of most -- the first person who popped
 into my mind -- was Captain Tightpants from Firefly.
 
 Here's a fun video of 32 best quotes from Firefly and
 Serenity, as selected by SCI FI WIRE, whatever that is.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMAKtXlXf4
 
 Unfortunately they didn't select my favorite Mal quote,
 which relates directly to the Jobs story: 
 
 We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.


Did you edit out the best part?


 We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty. All others go twiqust 
thy nethers

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote:

 
 Having said that, practicing Dzogchen atiyoga for a sufficient amount a time 
 as to gain certainty in the direct, non-conventional experience of the 
 natural state is the best way I know to gain recognition of it in others, but 
 even that depends on the peculiar mix of obscurations of the people involved. 
 

Recognizing the natural state in others and all is natural. If you recognize 
the natural state at some times, in some people, in some things, but at other 
times see appearances  other than the natural state, perhaps that is a 
reflection of obscurations. 

When you see Robin as natural state, is its nature LoveBliss?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Jed McKenna, who's books I respect, makes mention of ten year olds in sixty 
 year old bodies. That is what Haj, as I call him, reminds me of. 

Seeing pilgrimage to Mecca in all is good. Does that blossom to seeing Haj 
within yourself? That Haj, and nothing, is outside of you? Is that experience 
lovebliss?

Spectacularly underdeveloped emotionally and psychologically, so that he is 
reduced to playing children's games in the company of adults. 

Yes, that parable is wonderful isn't it. The innocence of children and that 
innocence, that state of wonder, awe, no categories, being the gateway to the 
natural state of heaven here, everywhere.  Pray adults everywhere learn this 
from the children.



He uses his edificial alias: Vajradatu, to convey instant authority and 
mystery, but he is just a ten year old kid. He plays at being himself, but has 
no real idea who he is, a paper Buddha, single ply.  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  Robin,
  
  I wouldn't stress out because I say it again, based upon his posts here he 
  comes across as the most inauthentic person here, he's just a troll, a liar 
  and a crook - bless his Buddhist heart. The only way he gets his message 
  across is by repeating the same old lies over and over again. That's why I 
  have always referred to him as Vakrabuddhi - the twisted intellect, the one 
  trick parrot, his choking routines of parroted shit.
  
  
  On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:02 PM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
  
   RESPONSE: Horseshit, all of it. Only one person has ever confronted me, 
   and he is my best friend. Vaj is playing Walter MItty here; and he has 
   told a big fibâI would challenge him to provide any testimony that even 
   begins to be consistent with what he claims hereâfrom the participants 
   at that meeting. Now I haven't read further than this post at FFL 
   tonight; but I can't help myself. 
   
   Vaj has got himself into big doo doo here. It is all a lie. A marvellous 
   fantasy. Not one person from the time I slipped into Unity throughout 
   the ten years when I enacted the role of the enlightened man and wrote 
   all those silly books, not one person ever confronted me. This story of 
   Vaj baffles me. It's like the gay thing; I wouldn't be ashamed if I was 
   gay; and in this case, I feel no humiliation or embarrassment to admit 
   that someone took me down. But no one did (except my best friend much 
   later). And Vaj is having a huge fantasy here. I wonder he would make a 
   public statement like this when he knows it is without foundation in 
   fact. Amazing really. He refers to a Doug K: I trust Doug K. I challenge 
   you, Vaj, to get anyone who was there to corroborate your outrageous 
   account.
   
   And I will check out the information that has been posted about me in the 
   past.
   
   Again, it is not a matter of being determined that no one shall know that 
   that I have lost a battle as it were; it is a question of truth, If what 
   Vaj said happened that day did not happen, then I need to set the record 
   straight. It did not happen. And this is an extraordinary act of 
   mendacity on Vaj's part.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ 
wrote:
snip
 You mean you accompanied one of my friends to where I was 
 temporarily staying in DC and they confronted me with my 
 astrological chart, and I refused to read itâsince I had
 converted to Catholicism, and was therefore up to date on
 what Augustine and Aquinas had said about the limit of the
 influence of the starsâand therefore wouldn't budge?

This appears to be Vaj's account of what took place, posted
here back in March 2006 (#89493):

In the 80's, I was invited by three close friends--an old
TM teacher, an MIU grad and a Sidha, to confront Robin
Woodsworth Carlsen who was then living in an apartment in
Washington DC. It was actually my first time at debunking a
claim of enlightenment, but when it was all over and done,
we were all convinced this man was without a doubt, a fraud.

And from a follow-up post (#89713):

My friends had invited me along simply because they wanted
me there in case he tried to pull anything. So I really went
along simply as a friend and really, as an observer. However
once we were there and started talking to Robin a certain
feeling started to develop that was unmistakeable. It wasn't
until the very end, spontaneously, I just did it. Still don't
think he knew what happened, but for all of us there, it was 
sufficient. Quite honestly this type of thing is really 
uncharacteristic of me, I'm not typically one for barnstorming
zen tactics. But for my friends it was like being lifted from

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Jed McKenna, who's books I respect, makes mention of ten year olds in sixty 
 year old bodies. That is what Haj, as I call him, reminds me of.

Seeing pilgrimage to Mecca in all is good. Does that blossom to seeing Haj 
within yourself? That neither Haj nor anything else is outside of you? Is that 
experience lovebliss?

Spectacularly underdeveloped emotionally and psychologically, so that he is 
reduced to playing children's games in the company of adults.

Yes, that parable is wonderful isn't it. The innocence of children and that 
state of wonder, amazement, awe, no categories, eternally fresh and vibrant, 
being the gateway to the natural state -- the threshold of heaven available 
here and everywhere. Pray adults learn from children.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:


Vaj belives that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes a truth.
 Bless his Buddhist heart.

That is a wonderful insight. We repeat the lie of separation over and over 
again, over so many years. One day we wake up laughing, no longer seeing the 
lie. The lie is the pathway to truth, life is the deepest teacher. We 
repeatedly bang our head against the wall, but that cannot last. The wall 
banging comes to a stop. The lie cannot survive, it just takes some intense 
living of the lie for it to shrivel naturally from its own lack of foundation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   Jed McKenna, who's books I respect, makes mention of ten year olds in 
   sixty year old bodies. That is what Haj, as I call him, reminds me of.
  
  Seeing pilgrimage to Mecca in all is good. Does that blossom to seeing Haj 
  within yourself? That neither Haj nor anything else is outside of you? Is 
  that experience lovebliss?
  
  Spectacularly underdeveloped emotionally and psychologically, so that he 
  is reduced to playing children's games in the company of adults.
  
  Yes, that parable is wonderful isn't it. The innocence of children and that 
  state of wonder, amazement, awe, no categories, eternally fresh and 
  vibrant, being the gateway to the natural state -- the threshold of heaven 
  available here and everywhere. Pray adults learn from children.
 
 
 Heh - A critical difference 

Differences have their place.


 between being child-like, and childish. I find Vaj as an adult to be a 
 childish dolt. 

Seeing momentary distinctions (whether the projections are chidish dolts or 
Shiva) within oneself, seeing everything as love bliss, is natural and 
wonderful. 

 I would never equate my child's innocence and wonder as she grows in the 
 world with this moron's ignorant blather and deception. Your mangling of an 
 obvious point seems reactive and meaningless to me.
 
 As for 
 everything-being-my-perception-and-the-perception-couldn't-occur-if-the-object-of-perception-were-not-in-fact-within-me,

Perceptions is a fun way of expressing it. That you find nothing is outside 
of you is the key. 

 that and five bucks will get you a cuppa coffee, and sometimes you just gotta 
 call a dolt a dolt.:-)


Yes, the lovebliss of dolt IS the lovebliss of dolt. A = A.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
   
Vaj belives that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes
a truth.  Bless his Buddhist heart.
   
   That is a wonderful insight. We repeat the lie of separation
   over and over again, over so many years. One day we wake up
   laughing, no longer seeing the lie. The lie is the pathway to
   truth, life is the deepest teacher. We repeatedly bang our
   head against the wall, but that cannot last. The wall banging
   comes to a stop. The lie cannot survive, it just takes some
   intense living of the lie for it to shrivel naturally from
   its own lack of foundation.
  
  Non sequitur and whopping category error.
  
  FAIL.
 
 I do not think tartbrain was taking a test for receiving a grade.

Life is a classroom, experience is a teacher, probably the ultimate one (trace 
that lineage). Yet, I am unsure what a grade means in this class. Perhaps its 
Pass /Fail, a UC Santa Cruz of life. 

I like the notion of fail. There is no resolution. Of anything. Life is the 
playground of failure, loose ends, no tidy completions, incomprehensiveness, 
wonder, a trans-sequitur Pollack painting, a ball of string and stringy knots, 
a kleenx-box of mind states.  Failure in all of this is natural. No one leaves 
here with a passing grade. 

The leaving of that, the letting go, being A-OK with that is such a vast 
relief, like a long sigh of Atlas, a rush of vayu across the sky, an air gun 
with 12 foot nozzles blasting the mind, leaving a fresher view. 

When we find a string in the ground, we pull on it, we absorb, or are absorbed 
by the sequence it creates within our minds. That sequence may be different 
from person to person. Indeed, it would be odd if it were otherwise. To premise 
one perfect correct sequence for all people in all times is funny. 

And laughter is a means, and the end of, letting go of the need for 
completeness and resolution. Laughter is sensing the gap between and within the 
attempts at tidiness of all things, matters, ideas and quests.

I happened across the last part of Annie Hall recently. It closes with the 
story of a guy talking to his psychiatrist. My brother thinks that he is a 
chicken. Why don't you turn him in the doc asks.  I would but I need the 
eggs.  My mind thinks there are differences and that it can find resolution of 
them out there. It needs the eggs. Or so I have thought. 

 His response may be a non sequitur. (You will have to explain to me the 
 category error Judy, as I have trouble with categories these days.) You have 
 a very linear, logical mind, I think I used to be that way. Your mind is too 
 tightly focused sometimes. tartbrain is describing the spontaneous unfolding 
 of enlightenment, 


no, just the unfoldment of life.

that aspect of the process of awakening where you basically have no control 
over how it is going to proceed. 

becoming aware that there is no real control. More like the car on a areal 
merry-go-round sort of thing found in amusement parks. To kids, it looks like 
they are driving.  

This is in fact the principle of TM. But outside of meditation, this other 
thing is going on, just like meditation, 

take it as it comes applies to both, an underrated, often cliche-accused, gem.

unraveling what we think the ultimate goal of meditation is going to be like, 
and also every other aspect of what we think our life is about.


Interesting quest. Defining first, what is life about. And then, what it should 
be about. And how it will be about later. And what it will be about when we 
arrive. Its about resolutions. What if there is no car, no road, no place, no 
resolutions.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
   Having said that, practicing Dzogchen atiyoga for a sufficient amount a 
   time as to gain certainty in the direct, non-conventional experience of 
   the natural state is the best way I know to gain recognition of it in 
   others, but even that depends on the peculiar mix of obscurations of the 
   people involved. 
 
  Recognizing the natural state in others and all is natural. If you 
  recognize the natural state at some times, in some people, in some things, 
  but at other times see appearances  other than the natural state, perhaps 
  that is a reflection of obscurations. 
  
  When you see Robin as natural state, is its nature LoveBliss?
 
 If you are in your natural state, everything is in its natural state. That is 
 always from the POV of one's own body. While everyone is perceived to be in 
 their natural state, those other bodies may not be noticing that from their 
 POV. Finding out if those other bodies are experiencing their natural state 
 from their POV is more involved, 

But is it meaningful? I am sure it must be, else why would Jim and Vaj pursue 
it. I  seek to uncover the blinds of my life to see more fully what they see.

I take Jim and Vaj at their words that they are living natural state, that 
there is nothing outside of what they are. At a minimum, that is appreciating 
lovebliss everywhere, even some numbskulls experience that. So I am awed and 
curious about the deeper understandings they have come to -- beyond knowing all 
to be within themselves, radiating, even if recognized as a subtle illusion, 
intense love bliss.


 because first of all they have to describe what they are experiencing. If 
 they say they are seeking their natural state, then obviously they are not 
 there yet, as an experience. It is another matter if they are claiming 
 enlightenment. 

Which if anyone is, is their playing, mischievous joking, with us. 

tartbrain I think is right in saying that if you are in the natural state, 
that is the only thing you can experience, but it does not necessarily mean 
the body that seems to house that experience is omniscient.
 

Omniscience is a large word. But omniscinece of what? Of the loose, unresoved 
ends of the universe? Is there a lack in not being omniscient? 

Perhaps it is like saying, I have not seen every rerun of Lavern and 
Shirley, as in I am not omniscient about some details of inconsequential 
loose ends. Does it matter if one is not concerned with loose ends, if one 
understands there is never any resolution of loose ends? Trans-omniscience 
seems more fulfilling than omniscience.  Ha, but unless I am omniscient, how 
would I know.

  
 Suppose we have a great master. What can they tell? Is it possible to fool a 
 master? The master-disciple relationship is almost always under certain 
 controlled conditions, in which the master's position in the relationship is 
 clearly delineated. Supposing you run into such a master on the street never 
 having seen him or her before, and have no idea who that person is. You 
 strike up a conversation. Who can tell what about what state each is in? I 
 have no idea what the answer to this question might be.
 
 P.S. What does it mean to say (as Vaj did above) 'to gain certainty in the 
 direct, non-conventional experience of the natural state', is this a 
 reference to the natural state not being a typical experience for people, 
 that it is thus uncommon? The natural state could never be non-conventional 
 in another meaning because it is the only state of existence, and in that 
 meaning, totally conventional. There is nothing special to do to have the 
 natural state except getting rid of the illusions you have about what it is. 

A spiritual path is a special kind of illusion, one that unwinds itself in the 
end, and vanishes. If you are still on the path, you can guess where you are 
not.


Yes. I think the Supremes said it well, Stop! In the Name of Love

The direct antidote to the life of Rawhide

Rollin', rollin', rollin'.
Rollin', rollin', rollin'.
Rollin', rollin', rollin'.
Rollin', rollin', rollin'.
Rawhide!

[FairfieldLife] Re: DOC-DEBUT: David Wants to Fly | Link TV



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:

 On 11/05/2011 06:47 AM, Vaj wrote:
  On Nov 5, 2011, at 1:30 AM, seventhray1 wrote:
 
  Thanks for the link.  Just saw it for the first time.  Very well done.
 
  What I'd like to see is an extra which includes the entire interview with 
  the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math. It has been transcribed and it is 
  particularly damning to Mahesh yogi, as it touches on how his students are 
  mis-pronouncing the mantras, the lack of understanding and proper teaching 
  on bhava-tita (the transcendent), etc.  It's quite liberating to hear. 
  Let's hope David eventually releases it with subtitles. He could even 
  release it as a separate mini-documentary, An Interview with the 
  Shankaracharya. Without ever mentioning Mahesh's spiritual incest it deals 
  a final deathblow.
 
 Do you have a link to the transcription?  I'd love to read it.  One 
 expert in the field showed me the more traditional way of using the beej 
 mantras by themselves as a meditation.  A bit removed from TM.
 


Here is a transcript of what appears to be a conversation between S  S from 
Paul Mason's site. I don't recall all of this in the film, though.

http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/TheLastInstruction.html

I was the desciple of Gurudev and had [been] taken into his fold through a 
ceremony called Dand Sanyaas which Mahesh Yogi could not get done as he was not 
a Brahman. Also Mahesh was his secretary and he was not Gurudev's disciple in 
any way but was a part of the administrative staff.

So far as I know he did not know anything about yoga so I have no idea how he 
became Yogi. But he was very smart and shrewd. He was responsible for the 
controversy over Shankaracharya's here in Jyotirmath. He wanted to put up here 
a Shankaracharya who would listen to him. That was his motive behind dividing 
the Jyotirmath.

After Gurudev's demise he spread the news that there is a will made by Gurudev 
on his name and that claims him to be Gurudev`s disciple...
The will named four people- the first name was Shantanand, second DwarkaPrasad 
Shastri, third name was Vishnudevanand and fourth name was Parmanand.
Now when the will was opened for reading it turned out that Shantanand did not 
understand Sanskrit, he used to work for Geeta press on the salary of 14 rupees 
per month and thus was not capable enough, secondly, Dwarkaprasad Shastri, was 
a married man with family, thirdly, Vishnudevanand, was not educated enough and 
fourth, Parmanand, who was M.A., his big toe on the right leg was amputed and a 
disabled [person] is not given Sanyaas, thus he was nullified. Thus the four 
were rejected and Swami Krishnabodhashramji was made Shankaracharya but Mahesh 
Yogi instigated Shantanand to fight the court case. He was given a car and 
money and all other assistance and help. 

Now Sita Saraf was in Kolkatta when Gurudev passed away and she along with 
Mahesh played out a drama claiming that they asked Gurudev to accept their 
lives but Gurudev refused and passed away. It was also spread far and wide that 
when Gurudev's soul was leaving his body, Mahesh Yogi's soul was also exit-ing 
but Gurudev pushed his soul back because Mahesh had to complete Gurudev's 
incomplete work for which he had to go abroad!!!

Also, as per the will that was revealed, it stated clearly that the order of 
succession was to be Shantanand, Dwarkaprasad Shastri, Vishnudevanand and 
Parmanand. However all of them passed away in exactly the reverse order! If 
Gurudev, who has the far sight to forsee such events, had written the will, how 
could they all pass away in exactly the reverse order??

Therefore, if this is so, that he was a 'siddha  mahatma', why was this in 
reverse order?

- Swami Swaroopanand, speaking to film-maker David Sieveking, 22nd May 2009

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  I have to say I really loved this post - very humorous :-).
 
 
 Yeah, CurtisDb and the Rajas in the anti-saint bed together.


Does Curtis sing The Walking Blues to them in the morning?

When the rajas wake up (i mean in the morning) what sort of bed head do they 
have? Or does the crown keep it all nice and neat?

 

Woke up this morning I looked 'round for my shoes
You know I had those mean old walking blues
Yeah, I woke up this morning I looked 'round for my shoes
Girl, I had those, ooh, mean old walking blues

Some people tell me that worried blues ain't bad
It's the worst old feeling I ever had
People tell me that worried blues ain't bad
It's the worst old feeling, ooh child, I ever had

Looks run to the ocean and the ocean runs to the sea
If I don't find my baby, don't bury me
Look to the ocean and the ocean went to the sea
Yeah, if I don't find my baby, ooh yeah, don't bury me

Minutes seem like hours and hours seem like days
Since my baby started her low down ways, yeah
Minutes seem like hours and hours seem like days
Since my baby, ooh, started her low down ways

I woke up this morning, people, I looked 'round for my shoes
You know I had those mean old walking blues
Yeah, I woke up this morning I looked 'round for my shoes
Yeah, you know I had those, ooh, mean old walking blues
(Robert Johnson)
-

Curtis does a wonderful version of Walkin' Blues (well, I am sure many many 
versions, but I heard the one from his CD or site.) Maybe as good, though very 
different style, to Paul Butterfield, which may be the deepest vasana I have 
for that song -- probably having to do with the times, those days, of my first 
darshan with that version (ah, the shakti!!, ha. Like new dimensions opened up).



 
 
 
  
  
  On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Buck  wrote:
  
   CurtisDb, I see you're Holding the Line, I'm reading your old and very 
   conservative feelings here about the dome program and can see by that 
   very same token a deeply held concern that our meditators visiting saints 
   would keep themselves out of the Domes and diminish our communal numbers 
   meditating together here. CurtisDb, you might be picketing the meetings 
   coming up in Vedic City soon with spiritual teacher, saint, and master, 
   John Douglas? 
   
   Master John Douglas is going to very shortly be visiting Fairfield again. 
   This is clearly antagonizing to the dome numbers. As a proponent of the 
   anti-saint doctrine, will you be putting yourself in the arrest line out 
   front at the demonstrations to Save the Dome Numbers outside his meetings 
   in Vedic City? Or at least help incite in singing to rally a unified 
   reactionary Raja response singing protest songs against saints! Look 
   what's happening in the Streets, have a revolution, have a revolution! 
   You could be instrumental in the Maharishi said anti-saint movement 
   here. You're off FFL for a week, catch a fast train West out of Union 
   Station quick. The Rajas could use your help here. 
   
   We could get you a gig at Paradiso Cafe if that would help. A lot of 
   famous people have played there or at least had coffee there.
   
   It's time to bring up the reserves, 
   
   -Buck in FF 
   
   
Dear CurtisDb, I do appreciate your concern. However first let me say 
that, like with other things, Maharishi told many different people at 
different times different things about seeing or being with the saints. 
The problem with the Fairfield dome numbers is not with people seeing 
the saints. The problem is with the TM-Rajas at this point. 

This communal problem with the TM-Rajas is not going to change until 
the TM-Rajas change how they have chosen to see it. The dome numbers 
are what they are and it is the fault now of the TM-Raja's. That 
TM-Taliban-Raja element and that Prime Minister in particular. We all 
shall help the situation by joining together to occupy the domes in 
meditation, as best we can. To that end the Rajas need to immediately 
change those administrative guidelines and just ask that people do TM 
and the TM-Siddhis while at 'Occupy the Domes', or on the IA course. 
That is simply for a scientific control over the research being done. 
People's experience and the science seems to indicate that it's a 
worthy mission.

Secondly, I'm an old devotee of SBS Guru Dev and he certainly said to 
go and be with the saints. I'm with him in this. The TM-Rajas are 
clearly wrong and ignorant about seeing saints. The Rajas are in the 
way of the dome numbers and invincibilty.

Jai Guru Dev,
-Buck 


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

 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote:
 
  I know that this may be challenging

[FairfieldLife] Curtis and The Walking Blues -- Occupy the Domes!!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote:



 -


  Curtis does a wonderful version of Walkin' Blues (well, I am sure many
many versions, but I heard the one from his CD or site.) Maybe as good,
though very different style, to Paul Butterfield, which I am partial to
-- probably having to do with the times, those days, of my first darshan
with that version (new dimensions opened up).
But you be the judge (non judgmentally, ha).
Erichttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THPXoLjQX-Y
Roberthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sml8W5SAwo

Paulhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8TNYEJmnF4http://www.youtube.com/wat\
ch?v=VoNJysPjjtchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpz-1qpNBwfeature=fvst
Bonniehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z65oAMwWq54
Susanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I1AH5Bshukfeature=related
Deadhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sPYml9xO-E
Quicksilverhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBBtIPvU3t0

And for the  grand finale, our own Headliner:  Curtis Blues!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-arnwUV2VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-arnwUV2VI
http://www.curtisblues.com/videos.htm
http://www.curtisblues.com/videos.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: DOC-DEBUT: David Wants to Fly | Link TV

 in Rajasthan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan . Ram raja parishad was a Hindu
traditional party, and not an Indian (or Hindu) nationalist party.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Rajya_Parishad#cite_note-1  The RRP
was dharmic, which significantly affected the political outlook of the
party. Hindu dharma does not generally accept the (western) concept of a
nation because dharma is said to permeate the entire universe, rather
than demarcate between nation states. Dharma concerns all living
beings (âtman). Like Hindutva, RRP wanted a uniform civil code in
India, based on Manava-Dharma-Shastra, with Ahimsa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa  to first creed. The party turned
inactive and was one of the many parties to merge together to form the
Bharatiya Jana Sangh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Jana_Sangh
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Rajya_Parishad#cite_note-2

















--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
  On 11/05/2011 06:47 AM, Vaj wrote:   On Nov 5, 2011, at 1:30 AM,
seventhray1 wrote: Thanks for the link.  Just saw it for the
first time.  Very well done. What I'd like to see is an
extra which includes the entire interview with the Shankaracharya of
Jyotir Math. It has been transcribed and it is particularly damning to
Mahesh yogi, as it touches on how his students are mis-pronouncing the
mantras, the lack of understanding and proper teaching on bhava-tita
(the transcendent), etc.  It's quite liberating to hear. Let's hope
David eventually releases it with subtitles. He could even release it as
a separate mini-documentary, An Interview with the Shankaracharya.
Without ever mentioning Mahesh's spiritual incest it deals a final
deathblow.Do you have a link to the transcription?  I'd love to
read it.  One   expert in the field showed me the more traditional way
of using the beej   mantras by themselves as a meditation.  A bit
removed from TM. Here is a transcript of what appears to be a
conversation between S  S from Paul Mason's site. I don't recall all of
this in the film, though. 
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/TheLastInstruction.html  I was the
desciple of Gurudev and had [been] taken into his fold through a
ceremony called Dand Sanyaas which Mahesh Yogi could not get done as he
was not a Brahman. Also Mahesh was his secretary and he was not
Gurudev's disciple in any way but was a part of the administrative
staff.  So far as I know he did not know anything about yoga so I
have no idea how he became Yogi. But he was very smart and shrewd. He
was responsible for the controversy over Shankaracharya's here in
Jyotirmath. He wanted to put up here a Shankaracharya who would listen
to him. That was his motive behind dividing the Jyotirmath.  After
Gurudev's demise he spread the news that there is a will made by Gurudev
on his name and that claims him to be Gurudev`s disciple... The will
named four people- the first name was Shantanand, second DwarkaPrasad
Shastri, third name was Vishnudevanand and fourth name was Parmanand.
Now when the will was opened for reading it turned out that Shantanand
did not understand Sanskrit, he used to work for Geeta press on the
salary of 14 rupees per month and thus was not capable enough, secondly,
Dwarkaprasad Shastri, was a married man with family, thirdly,
Vishnudevanand, was not educated enough and fourth, Parmanand, who was
M.A., his big toe on the right leg was amputed and a disabled [person]
is not given Sanyaas, thus he was nullified. Thus the four were rejected
and Swami Krishnabodhashramji was made Shankaracharya but Mahesh Yogi
instigated Shantanand to fight the court case. He was given a car and
money and all other assistance and help.   Now Sita Saraf was in
Kolkatta when Gurudev passed away and she along with Mahesh played out a
drama claiming that they asked Gurudev to accept their lives but Gurudev
refused and passed away. It was also spread far and wide that when
Gurudev's soul was leaving his body, Mahesh Yogi's soul was also
exit-ing but Gurudev pushed his soul back because Mahesh had to complete
Gurudev's incomplete work for which he had to go abroad!!!  Also, as
per the will that was revealed, it stated clearly that the order of
succession was to be Shantanand, Dwarkaprasad Shastri, Vishnudevanand
and Parmanand. However all of them passed away in exactly the reverse
order! If Gurudev, who has the far sight to forsee such events, had
written the will, how could they all pass away in exactly the reverse
order??  Therefore, if this is so, that he was a 'siddha  mahatma',
why was this in reverse order?  - Swami Swaroopanand, speaking to
film-maker David Sieveking, 22nd May 2009

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Yes, I agree that taking full responsibility for my thoughts and actions is 
 for me and me alone. Beyond that, we are all One - I agree with this 
 completely, that the stuff that makes up a tartbrain or a whynotnow7 or a Haj 
 is fundamentally the same - far more the same than different. 
 
 However there is also the paradox of investigating whatever differences we 
 may find in this Oneness, while never losing sight or contact with the 
 Oneness. That is what I enjoy, and the only way I can see to fulfill my 
 obligation to myself as a human being. Sure, We Are All One, and I enjoy 
 investigating the fractions too.
 

Do you find things to be more of an understanding? Taking responsibility, 
agreeing, fulfilling obligations, investigating/analyzing have the flavor of 
understandings. 

The intensity of lovebliss of being, not this being or that being, I find 
precludes casting harsh distinctions. At times your statements do not compute. 
But there are any number of things that I don't understand -- and are not 
things I seek or need to resolve. Simply more that some things are left to 
evaporate into wonder.  

That is why I asked, paraphrasing, does that blossom to seeing Haj as yourself, 
fundamentally, deeply, unshakably? That neither Haj nor anything else is 
outside of you, lovebliss permeating?


  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:

 Jed McKenna, who's books I respect, makes mention of ten year olds in 
 sixty year old bodies. That is what Haj, as I call him, reminds me of.

Seeing pilgrimage to Mecca in all is good. Does that blossom to seeing 
Haj within yourself? That neither Haj nor anything else is outside of 
you? Is that experience lovebliss?

Spectacularly underdeveloped emotionally and psychologically, so that 
he is reduced to playing children's games in the company of adults.

Yes, that parable is wonderful isn't it. The innocence of children and 
that state of wonder, amazement, awe, no categories, eternally fresh 
and vibrant, being the gateway to the natural state -- the threshold of 
heaven available here and everywhere. Pray adults learn from children.
   
   
   Heh - A critical difference 
  
  Differences have their place.
  
  
   between being child-like, and childish. I find Vaj as an adult to be a 
   childish dolt. 
  
  Seeing momentary distinctions (whether the projections are chidish dolts or 
  Shiva) within oneself, seeing everything as love bliss, is natural and 
  wonderful. 
  
   I would never equate my child's innocence and wonder as she grows in the 
   world with this moron's ignorant blather and deception. Your mangling of 
   an obvious point seems reactive and meaningless to me.
   
   As for 
   everything-being-my-perception-and-the-perception-couldn't-occur-if-the-object-of-perception-were-not-in-fact-within-me,
  
  Perceptions is a fun way of expressing it. That you find nothing is 
  outside of you is the key. 
  
   that and five bucks will get you a cuppa coffee, and sometimes you just 
   gotta call a dolt a dolt.:-)
  
  
  Yes, the lovebliss of dolt IS the lovebliss of dolt. A = A.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy Fairfield



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coop williamgcoop@... wrote:

 News from other Occupy Wall Street protests around Iowa
 .DesMoinesRegister.com
 http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/10/29/news-from-other-occupy-wall-street-protests-around-iowa/
 
 
 Fairfield: In lieu of continuous occupation, a local group of protesters
 organized an informational gathering in Howard Park and also screened the
 documentary The Corporation at a local coffeehouse. Video from the park
 event:
 
 http://vimeo.com/30531665
 

Nice video.  

Who the woman singing at the end? Local FF? She wonderfully revitalizes a song 
that time has calcified.



 #Occupy Fairfield: Awareness and Education from Wayside Shine Productions
 on Vimeo.
 
 One of the Fairfield supporters, Rianna Koppel, also had this to say:
 
 I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire Occupy Fairfield Group, but I
 can speak personally on why I don't think we are occupying a public space
 consistently.
 
 Fairfield is home to a community that is based in Transcendental
 Meditation. At our university, Maharishi University of Mangement, many
 students, staff, and faculty are already working on many projects that
 relate directly to sustainability, consciousness, local economy, local
 cooperatives  financial and otherwise, farmer's markets and CSAs, and
 many, many more.
 
 What I think the purpose of our local Occupy movement is has to do more
 with education, awareness, and continued promotion of local projects and
 activities that are already taking place to support each other in our
 community. I think that this is the perspective that everyone is taking
 here in Fairfield, and so through the Occupy movement, we have strengthened
 and rallied our community. We do not need to occupy a public space
 consistently in order to do what we see as the next step from this movement.

[FairfieldLife] Absorbing Sins

Swami Swaroopanand quote

Gurudeva [SBS]used to give upadesha (initiation) without any fees. He used to 
say 

'If I accept any gift from the disciple (or fees), then his sins are 
transmitted to me.'

From that angle, MMY is perhaps one of the most generous teachers to have 
walked the planet.

On the other hand, SBS used to say, do not give me your donations, give me your 
sins. (a different slant on the above quote)

I like the latter approach and mechanism. (It is simple. And pwerful in that 
taking back a gift is not polite -- and hardly productive. That is, naturally  
sense of commitment is stronger)  

However, it has periodically  occurred to me that a teacher is limited by karma 
in what they can give. Thus the injunction to serve the wise -- serving them 
(and/or donating) creates a  weather-like karmic low pressure point and grace 
is able to flow more fully. 

Then again, simply attention on teachers (here and now, or otherwise) appears 
to bring (a type of) grace.

What do you find?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson


For me the flow was getting lost (in my reading) so I added back some of the 
earlier conversation. If I got the order mixed up, and it changes intended 
meanings, please correct.  donates prior exchanges from each of us. 


 TB: The intensity of love bliss of being, not this being or that being, I 
 find precludes casting harsh distinctions. At times your statements do not 
 compute. But there are any number of things that I don't understand -- and 
 are not things I seek or need to resolve. Simply more that some things are 
 left to evaporate into wonder.  
 
 TB:  That is why I asked, paraphrasing, does that blossom to seeing Haj as 
 yourself, fundamentally, deeply, unshakably? That neither Haj nor anything 
 else is outside of you, lovebliss permeating?
 
 WNN: Yes, I agree that taking full responsibility for my thoughts and 
 actions is for me and me alone. Beyond that, we are all One - I agree with 
 this completely, that the stuff that makes up a tartbrain or a whynotnow7 or 
 a Haj is fundamentally the same - far more the same than different. 

 WNN: However there is also the paradox of investigating whatever differences 
 we may find in this Oneness, while never losing sight or contact with the 
 Oneness. That is what I enjoy, and the only way I can see to fulfill my 
 obligation to myself as a human being. Sure, We Are All One, and I enjoy 
 investigating the fractions too.

 TB: Do you find things to be more of an understanding? Taking 
 responsibility, agreeing, fulfilling obligations, investigating/analyzing 
 have the flavor of understandings.

 WNN: Fundamentally? no. I tend to operate fundamentally on my intuition.

TB: Intuition to me is a type of understanding, of something, about something. 
It is not silence, its not love bliss permeating. I am not referring to an 
intuition that there is nothing outside of what you are. It is something more 
fundamental.

 WNN: It is easier on the mind. Otherwise, in the course of daily life, sure, 
 and money helps, like at the supermarket, or doing my job.
  

 WNN: It seems like you are building a condition

TB: I am not building any conditions, though my words may be crude in 
expressing things. Its a living thing, not an intellectual, model, or 
imperative thing. 

 WNN: where a certain intensity of lovebliss of being  stands outside of 
 casting harsh distinctions. 

TB: Love bliss permeating is cruder than living nothing is outside of me. 
Your indications are of living the latter state (though perhaps not using those 
words). I assume love bliss is not lost in the ripeness nothing is outside of 
me.  

 WNN: I prefer to think of the distinctions I make as precise at the time. If 
 they are perceived as harsh as well, it is none of my business, beyond my 
 control. What am I supposed to do about that? 

TB: Harshness does imply intent and that was not my intent to say your inner 
state is harsh at times. I don't know that. Despite fumbling terms, I certainly 
have internally known harshness, in the sense of tightly binding up a view of 
someone or something, packing them or it up into tighter boundaries, even while 
chipping away, diminishing them, separating them out as separate, losing heart 
value, projecting my stuff onto them. So I know the types of words, 
expressions, angles that come from me in that mode. (For conciseness, lets call 
these Inner A and Expressions A).

TB: Other times, I have known something quite different. Love bliss permeating 
(inside and in everything) is a crude way of expressing that. I know what types 
of words, expressions, feelings, appreciations from me that come from that. 
(Lets call these Inner B and Expressions B).

TB: It is imprecise and incorrect for me to cast your words towards some as 
harsh. You are correct, harshness is someone's appreciation or projection of 
something, not the thing in itself. However, I do see you using expressions 
(behaviors, styles) that I have known that came from my mode of Inner A  

TB: I can appreciate that there may be alternatives that I have not 
experienced. I hold it possible, though it is hard for me to fathom, that for 
some, including yourself, Expressions A comes from love bliss permeating 
(Inner B). As I said, that does not compute for me -- but there are many 
things I do not fathom. Thus my curiousity if that is the case.
 
 WNN: As for Haj, its not a condemnation of him in some absolute sense. It is 
 calling him out for some of the crap he spreads around, that I personally 
 feel like responding to, because I am given an allotment of 50 posts a week 
 to do so here. 

TB: is your intent to help him out? (in ways you believe he needs help with -- 
he may have alternative views.) Or is it to set the record straight?  In my 
experience, using A Expressions is not necessary to do either, is not 
particularly effective in my experience. However, I appreciate that you have 
different successes and preferences.

TB: Or are your behaviors more reactive

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality Distortion Field: from Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
anartaxius@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  
  It would be a category error if tartbrain intended it
  to be taken as a relevant response to what Nabby said,
  which appears to have been the case. Nabby was not, of
  course, talking about the unfolding of enlightenment
  but about Vaj's belief concerning deliberate
  misstatements of fact.
 
 That is correct.
  

I don't feel bound to take the same direction Nab's or others take in any 
particular post. Typically, I write something about what their post creates 
within me. Sometimes I hear a different drummer, other times I am quite engaged 
following the mutual beat. I understood Nab's meaning. Nothing arose towards 
his direction, something did towards another vista. I took the road less (or 
not yet) travelled.

 No Judy, I will continue to read some of your posts. It might be that 
 tartbrain is actually experiencing the world in terms of a single category; 

tart experiences tartness (someone has to do it, I drew the short straw.) 
Something else simply is.

(like everyone, chitta vrittis are certainly less than nirodha at times, thus 
shadows may block the moon. Full eclipses certainly occur. And yet full moons 
can bring the world to light.) 

this is what the word 'boundless' refers to in terms of consciousness in 
spiritual parlance. The distinctions which are significant to you may not seem 
important to him. In unity the universe is a single category in which all 
things are related. 

Boundless and unity are concepts. Concepts can (appear) to tie some things 
together, make some things clearer. In other matters, I find that they are not 
helpful, even detrimental. Concepts can't grasp the  non-conceptual. Why 
bother. 

If anything, chitta vrittis conceptua is counter to chitta vrittis nirodha. 
Concepts may may become shitta virittis neruda (though poetry is better than 
concepts, good poetry is not about words but about the gaps it reveals.)   

And labels and concepts can mess up conversations, that is, in understanding 
any inter-personal similarities about the moonlight.  See my convo with Jim. I 
have not much clue if we are seeing light from the same moon. I may be seeing 
the trashy neon light from some inner 7-11. And Jim may BE the moon (and 
stars). Miscommunication incubates and multiples from labels and concepts being 
used differently. And /or getting lost in the concept, words or labels, not the 
thing itself.  

So the connexion he made would be valuable for someone reading this, but not 
everyone, and apparently not you. But strictly logically as an answer to 
Nabby's comment, you are right.
 

Nabs and I have some nice conversations. See the other day. But I don't feel 
compelled to engage solely in a single, formulatic, prescibe mode. There is not 
singular or solely appropriate way to respond to anything. Lots of 
possibilities. Everyone has the opportunity to skip what has no value to them. 

 I am not deliberately attempting to be obnoxious, but you do seem to see that 
 value and others frequently as a characteristic of those with whom you are 
 having a discussion or skirmish. Just remember that such evaluations when we 
 have them, when we hold them, exist only in our own heads, not in the world 
 about us, and thus are a reflection of our own state of mind.
 

True of everything actually. Our worlds are our minds projections. Deep clean 
the mind, nirodharize it, and the commonality we share is pretty still, far 
from overflowing with distinctions, edges or sharp points.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy


I thought there was no starting point or ending point. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 I agree, but that was tartbrain - I was using his quote as a starting point.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   The movement belongs to those who move. Those who were stuck on the idea 
   that the movement and the TMO were ONLY about the 7-step program were, 
   well, stuck. I think M and TM were always a moving target about gateways 
   to consciousness and purifying collective consciousness, via a lot of 
   different avenues.
  
  
  BINGO !
  
  
  The lazy ones refused to change and later, even to meditate. In fact many 
  stopped TM because it brings about change. 
  Can't have that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy


I lived there a bit, and later visited regularly, throughout the 70s.  
We may have crossed paths (Oh, were you the bastard that cut me off on the 
Ridge of Bell that fine spring morning, ha)

Did my SCI at Cobb Mountain the summer or fall of '74. I remember
sticking my thumb out at the intersection of Brush Creek Rd. and
Hwy. 82

For a bit I worked in Smowmass but lived near town  and thus I used to daily 
hitchhike down hwy 82 and back daily. (Hitchhiking is such a great thing, 
environmentally sensible, economic, sociable. Too bad it has met its demise.) 
And fall of 74, I was driving from SB MIU to FF, the grand migration. Stopped 
in Aspen for a day or so and saw old friends (one of which was also a TM 
junkie). (Hey, were that guy we picked up leaving town, ha) (And I had done six 
weeks at Cobb earlier that spring.)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 
 Did not live there.  My dad and uncle bought a condominium from the blue
 prints in Snowmass Villiage around 1971 or '72, and we  would go out
 there once a winter to ski, and I would go out during the summer for
 various activities.  We still own it today, but don't utilize as much,
 and because of the economy, the rentals haven't really been offsetting
 the annual assessments, so we are thinking about selling it.-that is, my
 sisters and I.  I had many fun times there, especially in the summer.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
 
  You lived in Snowmass / Aspen? What years?
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@
 wrote:
  
  
   Did my SCI at Cobb Mountain the summer or fall of '74. I remember
   sticking my thumb out at the intersection of Brush Creek Rd. and
 Hwy. 82
   in Snowmass Colorado and hitchhiking to Cobb Mountain. Good times!
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
   
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:40 PM, turquoiseb
 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
   wrote:
   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@
 wrote:
 
  I worked on the Houston (Navasota, Grimes County) capital for
  room and board. And yes, shared an unheated cabin. Barhroom
  was the bushes outside. Yes, it gets cold in Texas during the
  Winter. Maharishi was absolutely right. The movement belongs
  to those who move large quantities of cash across national
  borders, undetected.

 I never went to any of the more modern TM hovels.
 I used to teach a lot of residence courses at
 Soboba (I think the name was) in southern CA,
 and attended many courses at Cobb Mountain in
 northern CA. The former didn't really have much
 personality, but the latter did. It had been
 some kind of camp or retreat facility before
 the TMO acquired it, and I found it charming,
 with its old clapboard cottages and rustic
 camp-era dining/meeting hall. Plus, the fact
 that most everyone was in a separate cottage
 made it easier to fool around on ATR courses. :-)


I attended many course at Cobb, including my ?flying? block. My
 flying
block had a lot of live wires. The cabins closest to the main
   buildings
were given to married, senior people. They brought with them the
   proper
mixings for martinis and had cocktail hour before time to do
 evening
program. I went back for many WPAs and the men often flew on what
 had
been the dance floor. That place had been a really hopping place
 for
Summers and especially the weekend. The dance floor was on
 springs,
   and
yes, in typical TMO style, Cobb Mountain had a reputation for lots
 of
alcohol flowing, lots of extramarital sex. Back to my flying
 block. We
had a fiddler from Boston. When our mommies and daddies went to
 bed we
   had
hoe downs outside the main buildings. A couple times we woke up
 the
   sidhi
administrators who told us to cut out the dancing and go to bed.
   
Cobb Mountain was in typical decay and the cabins were drafty as
 heck.
And yes, we were within something like 1,500 feet of the tree line
 so
   it
got cold, even in Spring and Fall.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin

Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but 
what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for 
myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first 
paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. 

In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my 
mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there?  I am sure there is, as you and 
others testify. But each long densely packed  paragraph that I attempt, my 
(perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks  Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I 
feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and 
abort the mission. 

Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing 
with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally 
and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, 
stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, 
after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a 
generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right 
Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind 
states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately.   

I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly 
his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the 
exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I 
can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be a rabbit hole, in his 
long discourses with a few other sparing partners. But in whole, I enjoy his 
insights and style. 

That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some cliff 
notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version (like 
needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights that you 
find of value in these dialogues. (This is not a loaded question.)  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 
 Ditto on that.  Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and
 enlightening discussion.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
 wrote:
  I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts.
 It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation
 invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience
 the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual
 approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a
 city.
 
  The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early
 on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in
 Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are
 evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up,
 he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys.
 Ding!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
 
  How about if some of us who qualify to go into the domes, join those on the 
  outside in the parking lot as solidarity!  
  Of course, writing this may have disqualified me from entering the domes, 
  but what the heck, the more the merrier! I can fit four flyers, comfortably 
  in my car, pretty close to deer skin seats, at least a cousin of the deer.  
  We may have to do a pool to cover the cost of new struts, but it is for a 
  good cause. 
  The higher flyers can sit in the front seats with the sunroof for added 
  height. Plenty of elbow and knee room.
  Looking for 3 Sidhas..to join me.
 
 
 Why do I get the feeling that Maharishi would find this initiative of 
 meditating outside the Dome vey good ?


As we have touched on in the past, we may share a common sense that M, 
consciously, or perhaps alternatively, simply, innocently, as a pawn of nature 
(aka the unfolding of vast eons of cause and effect) likes to set up billard 
shots 45 moves ahead. That is, push here, that causes an opposite effect there, 
that then spreads to hitting that thing over there at 63 degree angle, 
deflecting that other thing over there ... a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine of 
vast proportions.  

And perhaps he is going for a two-fer (or trifecta, quadraplexagoria ...) 

hm, this silly crown thing will blow their little minds, stretch the 
boundaries of their calcified mind states so that their thimble containers can 
begin to hold more of the vast ocean. 

AND the totally bitching thing is the 37th level effect of this silly crown 
thing will be Doug Hamiltonji, jumping into the Move, Moving, standing tall as 
I have wanted all of my meditating family to finally do, take the bull by the 
horns (white, satvic brahma bull) and collapsing the silliness of this sorry 
intermediate state of my movement, instill some balls into the dieharts that 
are left, and create some sensible programs and ways of administering them, 
picking up the shattered pieces of the 40 vedic ways to leave your loving, 
blasted, little minds.  

And THEN, when that leads to the 43rd level rebound effect, hold on to your 
britches, you are finally going to get a glimpse of my fuller vision.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin

Good one.  So really, what ideas of substance have you guys really been 
spending 4000 pages on?

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

 Why doubt your impression Tart?  If there was something of value for you in 
 our conversation you would have already found it and tossed it back to us in 
 your own clever style.  A Cliff notes summary would kill the value of the 
 dialogue for me,which is the ride, not the destination.
 
 Here you go:
 
 Robin believes that God existed and communicated his relationship to man 
 through the birth of Jesus and the Catholic church with Thomas Aquinas being 
 the go to guy for the details of that relationship.
 
 Curtis does not believe that there is adequate evidence for this claim or how 
 one might be able to distinguish this God idea as the right one out of all 
 the thousands man has proposed.
 
 Robin believes that God changed his relationship to man in the 40' with the 
 bombing of that monastery and is no longer answering his phone.
 
 Curtis finds this even more of a stretch than the first claim.
 
 Robin believes that there are significant issues with the theory of evolution 
 (although he generally accepts it) and that it is improperly being used as a 
 justification for materialistic reductionism in science.
 
 Curtis says that the theory of evolution gives him a boner hard enough to 
 drive in nails if a hammer was not available. (These are MY Cliff notes so 
 there is gunna be at least one boner reference, OK?)
 
 Robin believes that Curtis lacks the ability to fully take on someone else's 
 POV but instead runs his own routine over the person as if their POV didn't 
 exist.
 
 Curtis believes that his powers of understanding other people's POVs are so 
 far beyond the creator of the universe, that God himself appears like a 
 provincial yokal with a native New Yorker having just arrived at Grand 
 Central Station.
 
 God as rube: Where all them TV stars live, I come here to see em.  
 
 NYC native. It is customary for you to bring a watch as a gift when visiting 
 our TV stars. (Opens coat revealing selection)  Here are the approved watches 
 available at a discount to make sure you are well received at the star's 
 homes. 
 
 God (what a dipshit!) Well OK then if you say so.  I'd better buy a bunch 
 cuz Ma has her heart set on seeing a whole slew of them stars.
 
 And scene.
 
 I think that about covers it, I hope Robin doesn't feel misrepresented.  
 There was some pseudo gay banter that livened up the exchanges considerably, 
 but if you aren't a fan of the filler, you wont enjoy those exchanges either.
 
 Don't sweat it Tart.  There may only be some there there for a select few.  
 And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of 
 eternity, and if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these 
 exchanges spend eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer 
 (but because of the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in 
 August) then so be it.  I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to 
 entertain you from time to time.
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, 
  but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would 
  answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get 
  past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted 
  to fathom. 
  
  In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of 
  my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there?  I am sure there is, as 
  you and others testify. But each long densely packed  paragraph that I 
  attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks  Oh Lord, where is the 
  'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild 
  goose chase -- and abort the mission. 
  
  Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, 
  playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is 
  the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. 
  Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any 
  familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited 
  mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give 
  up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this 
  intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind 
  immediately.   
  
  I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more 
  broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding 
  value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be 
  honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be 
  a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin



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

 which is the ride, not the destination.

So its about style over substance? (cheap shot I know,but in my warped mind, a 
chuckling one.)
 
 
 Don't sweat it Tart.  There may only be some there there for a select few.  
 And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of 
 eternity, 

With 72 virgins? (which I think may be oversold. I mean at least some of them 
I would think are virgins for a reason, Get that disgusting thing away from 
me. )

Or does the secular version of heaven have 108 virgins and 1008 like totally 
perfected, experienced sexual beings. (which means the majority are gay, of 
course. Sort of, in a vague way, like white folk don't have rhythm thing.)

 And if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these exchanges spend 
 eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer (but because of 
 the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in August) then so 
 be it.  

I can relate, having spent a summer sleeping in the no AC attic on top of the 
DC center. (Don't get excited about the juxtaposition of AC / DC, it was just 
random.) That was the same summer as the Watergate break-in, but, um, I have no 
recollection, and um, to the best of my ability, I do not remember any Mr. 
Gordon Liddy. 

(Also that summer TM made the front page of the WSJ, I spit out my coffee, um I 
mean herbal tea, at that greasy spoon around the cornor when I saw that.)

 I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to entertain you from time 
 to time.

I will look forward to it -- if it makes it through the brain barrier so to 
speak. The mergence of Infinite Emptiness with Blazing Radiance, the eternal 
Buddha / Shiva Mind, doesn't easily  receive  postcards. It's this crazy rule 
the PO has: infinite, unbounded, non-localized is hard to deliver to (no wonder 
some go postal when they are tasked with finding that address.)

(By the way, play some Getz / Gilberto / Jobim on your ipod connected mega 
speakers for those 72 virgins. It is guaranteed to make true believers out of 
every last one of them.)


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, 
  but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would 
  answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get 
  past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted 
  to fathom. 
  
  In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of 
  my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there?  I am sure there is, as 
  you and others testify. But each long densely packed  paragraph that I 
  attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks  Oh Lord, where is the 
  'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild 
  goose chase -- and abort the mission. 
  
  Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, 
  playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is 
  the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. 
  Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any 
  familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited 
  mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give 
  up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this 
  intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind 
  immediately.   
  
  I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more 
  broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding 
  value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be 
  honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be 
  a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners. 
  But in whole, I enjoy his insights and style. 
  
  That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some 
  cliff notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version 
  (like needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights 
  that you find of value in these dialogues. (This is not a loaded question.) 
   
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
  
   
   Ditto on that.  Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and
   enlightening discussion.
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@
   wrote:
I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts.
   It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation
   invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience
   the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual
   approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
  
  
   Why do I get the feeling that Maharishi would find this initiative of
  meditating outside the Dome vey good ?
  
 
  As we have touched on in the past, we may share a common sense that M,
  consciously, or perhaps alternatively, simply, innocently, as a pawn of
  nature (aka the unfolding of vast eons of cause and effect) likes to set up
  billard shots 45 moves ahead. That is, push here, that causes an opposite
  effect there, that then spreads to hitting that thing over there at 63
  degree angle, deflecting that other thing over there ... a cosmic Rube
  Goldberg machine of vast proportions.
 
  And perhaps he is going for a two-fer (or trifecta, quadraplexagoria ...)
 
  hm, this silly crown thing will blow their little minds, stretch the
  boundaries of their calcified mind states so that their thimble containers
  can begin to hold more of the vast ocean.
 
  AND the totally bitching thing is the 37th level effect of this silly
  crown thing will be Doug Hamiltonji, jumping into the Move, Moving,
  standing tall as I have wanted all of my meditating family to finally do,
  take the bull by the horns (white, satvic brahma bull) and collapsing the
  silliness of this sorry intermediate state of my movement, instill some
  balls into the dieharts that are left, and create some sensible programs
  and ways of administering them, picking up the shattered pieces of the 40
  vedic ways to leave your loving, blasted, little minds.
 
  And THEN, when that leads to the 43rd level rebound effect, hold on to
  your britches, you are finally going to get a glimpse of my fuller vision.
 
 
 
 
 OTOH, maybe he was just a scatterbrain suffering from narcissistic
 syndrome.



I tend to see it as no brain. Scattered like ashes in the wind. I would comment 
on the rest, but I can only comprehend three syllable or less words (in a 
pinch). Mostly mono ones.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vickers machine gun crew with gas masks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 WWI
 I'd hate to be in that war!
 
 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/43262.jpg


Wake up. We no longer are. Don't you remember that big flash of light (no not 
the one after the tunnel, the one from that big stick thing on the hill). Right 
after that flash, remember, we laughed so hard with our full of light bodied 
german aspects of our selves after that one big flash happened. Good times.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vickers machine gun crew with gas masks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 WWI
 I'd hate to be in that war!
 
 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/5/43262.jpg

Wake up. We no longer are. Don't you remember that big flash of light (no not 
the one after the tunnel, the one from that big stick thing on the hill). 

Right after that flash, remember, how we laughed so hard along side, along with 
with our full-of-light bodied German aspects of our selves after that one big 
flash happened. Crazy days. Good times.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:32 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
 
  alf an hour until morning meditation.  Be there.
  
  
  Is a growing movement.  Meditating out in the Dome parking lot is real 
  nice in group.  It's comfortable and there is ample room.  People just 
  drive in sort of like at the old drive-in movie theatres.  In the 
  mornings they pull in and park and meditate facing East.  In the evenings 
  they park and meditate facing North.  Just like inside the domes. -Buck 
  in 
  
  There is something so poignant and sad about this little group of outcast 
  misfit toys, freezing their little feet, facing the Vedically prescribed 
  direction.
  
  Jesus, Bevan will you give them a freak'n hug or something?  I'm sure it 
  wouldn't take you long since you could embrace about 10 of them at a time. 
  (Just watch out for little people getting stuck in one of the your Kapha 
  rolls, only to be discovered later at an inconvenient time emerging like a 
  Benjamin Button baby-man from your fullness of fullness. (Best ever 
  Halloween costume though.)
 
 I think it's mostly in Buck's mind. 

Well what isn't? No, I don't mean that Bucks mind is the source of all creation 
for all beings and perspectives. (Though that's an interesting hypothesis to 
consider.) 

I mean of any of us, what part of our worlds are not solely, comprehensively, 
seamlessly, the product of our minds?  Air gun (with 12 foot nozzles) the mind, 
and the world is vapor.  



 At least I've
 never heard of any kind of group out in the parking
 lot.  Who in their right mind would put up with such
 humiliating nonsense?  And I've definitely not heard 
 of anyone, in the Dooms or anywhere else, changing the
 direction of their meditation from morning till night.
 Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Occupy the Domes!!


 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  
  Secondly, I'm an old devotee of SBS Guru Dev and he certainly said to go 
  and be with the saints.  I'm with him in this.  The TM-Rajas are clearly 
  wrong and ignorant about seeing saints.  The Rajas are in the way of the 
  dome numbers and invincibilty.
  
  Jai Guru Dev,
  -Buck


A story I love about SBS, when he was with his teacher, as a young student 
along with all the others. There was some special saint in town and all the 
boys were clamoring to go, and the teacher said, good, go.  SBS stayed 
behind, said it seems pointless -- here was infinite knowledge right in there 
in the ashram, what more could be gained by going to another saint?

If you have found what you need, where is the motivation to run around to 
others? If you have not found what you need, why are you still there?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Daughter of Ravi Shankar


Maybe she and Nora can perform a duet sometime. Sultry sitar.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote:

 thanks for posting and sharing this Gara , a rare raga  ,an independent
 raga, as well as an additive fragrance to other ragas; and that too, in
 two variants, a light classical piece so he has less restriction on what
 and how he can play the sitar but sometimes mislabeled as Bhimpalasi in
 the  West. Experts regards the raga as time-neutral. Other authorities
 and  common practice accept its performance between 9.00 pm and
 midnight.
 
 Ravi Shankar:an excerpt from Shankar's four-hour performance at the 1967
 Monterey Pop Festival:
 www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPJ-Jbg2zeAwww.youtube.com/watch?v=OtFj8jfhjJo
 
 Ravi Shankar  his lovely Daughter
 Anoushkahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG2moqxqIaE
 Check out this too:
 1. http://youtu.be/8anrbaISxSo
 http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F8anrbaISxSos\
 ession_token=dIQaMQfyxtgna0lBG74OgmgzL0F8MTMyMDMyNzUwNkAxMzIwMjQxMTA2
 2. http://youtu.be/ySG5YhT_CAs http://youtu.be/ySG5YhT_CAs
 3. http://youtu.be/7kD1UcTSttY http://youtu.be/7kD1UcTSttY
 4. http://youtu.be/Yn-Ctg1xB88 http://youtu.be/Yn-Ctg1xB88
 5. http://youtu.be/bQEqLSUDDNU
 http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FbQEqLSUDDNUs\
 ession_token=dIQaMQfyxtgna0lBG74OgmgzL0F8MTMyMDMyNzUwNkAxMzIwMjQxMTA2
 6. http://youtu.be/t1RVqVvj5ss http://youtu.be/t1RVqVvj5ss
 gives lesson to his daughter
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igDsu5QWhpofeature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened and FFL, continued



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

 To some extent, I've been less charmed by the latest two episodes of
 HBO's Enlightened while watching it, but in retrospect I've realized
 that Mike White and Laura Dern *are* still dealing with material that is
 relevant to FFL and to the cult of spiritual narcissism; it's just more
 subtle than in the first 2 episodes.

It sounds like an interesting show. Being bit torrent busted, I will have to 
wait for netflix to get it.
 
 It's now been a week since Amy has returned from her idyllic (although
 enforced) retreat in Hawaii. Her epiphany -- whatever it was -- had
 faded in significance, and now she's focused on trying to still live an
 enlightened life out in the real world. 

Because clearly we need enlightened individuals who on their own, have become 
spectacular beacons of light, independent of all the smucks around them, having 
transformed Consciousness, watered it , made it grow and evolve to fantastic 
higher states of Consciousness, not the dirty old Consciousness of the smucks. 

 In Ep4, confronted with her
 first weekend, she has to figure out what to do with it.

She has to figure out what to do with IT in relation to the world. Right on!   
 
 She first decides to spend it meditating, which gives us a classic (and
 hilarious) opportunity to listen to her inner thoughts in pretty much
 the classic TMer meditation. That is, all thoughts, no silence, all
 trivia and self-involvement. Her first thoughts are about being 40 and
 having wrinkles. Then she comes back to the mantra and tries to
 visualize something more positive, and lapses into thoughts of a happier
 time. But then, inspired by visions of that happy time, she sets out to
 recreate this fantasy happier time. And that's where the trouble begins.
 

It began there?

 She phones her ex-husband in the middle of the night, waking him, and
 tells him that he's just got to go off river rafting with her. At 7:00
 AM the next morning. And here's where the connection to TM and to
 cultism comes in; she doesn't *ask* him whether he wants to go, she
 tells him that he needs to, and makes the reservations herself. Being
 essentially a nice guy, he thinks she's crazy, but agrees to go anyway.
 They get there, are out on the river, and for a few minutes both are
 feeling a little of the fantasy happiness she was seeking.
 
 But then reality intrudes. She finds that he brought along a bag full of
 drugs 

Which are the Self, a wave on the infinite ocean of Consciousness. Whats her 
hang up?!

 and, offended in the way that only a New Age twif can be offended,
 throws them away. He goes ballistic, and storms away, her following. As
 he finds a new stash and gets high, she harangues him with what a
 low-life he is, continually insisting that she's doing it for his own
 good, trying to get him to become the person he could be. Problem is,
 it's not the person he wants to be. 

Maybe he doesn't want to be a person. Rather to be what he actually is.

 From his POV (and, by this time, the
 audience's), *she* is the one living in a delusional world, 

Because clearly they are not delusional, their mindstates, well if not 
enlightened, are well, like normal, good and true.

 and worse,
 she's consistently treating not only him but *everyone* around her as if
 they're lesser than she is. 

Because in the vastness and totality of silence, there are actually heirarchies 
of better and worse pockets of infinite silence. 

 The *only* way she can imagine interfacing
 with these lesser people is to try to convert them, to infect them
 with her hypomania and make them more like her. Fortunately Levi (Luke
 Wilson) finally has it up to here with her condescending, superior BS
 and tells her to fuck off and leave him alone. He tells her something
 she has never realized, that the way she sees him makes him feel like
 shit, because she sees him *as* shit, compared to her and her new
 fantasy lifestyle.
 
 That's where I think the real connection to FFL -- especially recently
 -- comes in. This place has been a hotbed 

Sounds kinky. Have I been missing out on something?

 of people asserting that they
 not only have the right to try to change people they don't like, they've
 been asserting that it's some kind of ethical or moral duty, and that
 anyone who *doesn't* do as they do and try to impose their view of how
 things should be on others is ethically deficient.
 
 Bzt. As Curtis has pointed out so well, this just does not compute.
 The only environment in which such a 'tude *does* compute is a cult,
 especially one that has a history of treating its members like children
 who need to be corrected by their betters. In other words, the TM
 movement.
 
 Such a sense of entitlement has no place on a forum composed of adults.


All good. Now we just got to find some adults to fill the forum.

 Adults don't really need anyone to stand up for them when someone says
 something about them

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   So you keep talking about Maharishi in great analysis and detail to keep 
   from thinking about how Lenz fucked up your head and heart? 
   
   That's what it looks like. Freddy was exceptionally gifted and insecure. 
   Probably suffering parental rejection, so he got together a few of you 
   and made sure HE was the boss, HE was the Guru. You kissed HIS butt, but 
   you get the picture- you lived it. Now instead of coming to grips with 
   it, you deflect everything about Lenz onto Maharishi. 
   
   Free clue: Grow a pair and start living in the present and/or see a 
   therapist about the Lenz shit and clear yourself out. Its kind of 
   pathetic to see you in this state, all blind to it and misguidedly 
   throwing all of your pain on Maharishi. After all, Lenz was the mentally 
   ill one, the crazy one, the one you can't grow past even now.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
   
This is not a counter rebuttal, simply another view, a point for 
further discussion and examination. 

The tipping point was when a portion (I think it was 11.73% but others 
may quibble on this)of the full time community -- and some ardent 
part-timers, kept clung to the notion that M. and his TMOs were all 
about, only about, the seven step program for teaching 20 min 2x / day. 

A parallel is Apple and Steve Jobs.  When he went more digital 
(i-tunes, i-phone) and creating superb customer experiences (Apple 
stores) etc, many of the faithful said, Huh, what does this have to do 
with selling Macs and What possible effect can a company with 3% 
market share have on digital music. Steve's vision was that Apple was 
a digital gateway company (or something along those lines with a core 
emphasis on superb design.

Apple would not be the company with the largest market capitalization 
in the world (subject to check) and Steve Jobs would not be revered as 
the CEO of the decade(s), if he limited his vision to selling Macs.   

M. and his TMOs, in my view, were / are about being a Consciousness 
gateway org -- not limited to 20 min 2x, but having 50 product lines 
that enable Consciousness to shine in all parts of a persons life. Yet 
many whined, when will we get OUR old TMO back, 20 min 2x. When will 
M come to his senses and do what he is supposed to do, teach TM.

 

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

 The sense of near-desperation with which some on this forum are hoping
 that Oprah is the new Merv and that TM is finally on the upswing 
 again
 left me thinking about its past, and trying to pinpoint where it all
 went wrong. Many have speculated on this forum about what that phase
 transition moment was, the point at which it all began to unravel and
 go downhill. For many (including luminaries like Charlie Lutes and 
 Jerry
 Jarvis), that point was the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program. Me, 
 I
 have a different theory, and I'm going to rap about it in a little
 mini-essay today. Be warned...this may be a little long (although not
 the length of Robin's epics), and it may piss a few people off. But 
 it's
 what I honestly believe.
 
 I cannot pinpoint the exact day or month or year in which TMers went
 officially bat shit crazy (some TM historian type here may be able to 
 do
 that for us),
  
  The day? Organizationally?  Turqb, it was in the Spring of '77 on a day 
  when the whole TM teaching organization got overturned by Maharishi at the 
  end of a huge governor (siddhis) training course in Switzerland.  As the 
  Maharishi was preparing to dis-band the course and have people (many of the 
  active teaching organization at the time) go home, things changed from that 
  point.   Before this the organizational evaluation of how the movement was 
  doing was in how the new initiations of new meditators were doing and also 
  in the numbers of mediators coming to residence courses.  In a meeting the 
  whole hierarchical order of the teaching organization was sorted, turned 
  out and replaced by 'teams' of teachers with Bevan, Neil and the Wilsons on 
  top and everyone else spun off. 

You got the spring of 77 and dissolving of the old orgs right. But Neil and the 
wilsons? in charge? I guess I didn't get those secret marching orders. I know 
the name, but Neil had nothing to do with our activities as guv teams of 4 in 
the field teaching the prep courses. The Wilsons, not sure who they are, 
however they surely were not someone the teams of guvs had anything to do with. 
(Were they  students at MIU in SB in 74 -- was Signe

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened and FFL, continued



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

and especially don't want it used outside the intended context to make me look 
like a dick.
 

That is totally over the top. I mean Curtis, you seem like a nice guy, maybe 
even an awesome guy, but for Barry to equate you with Shiva, and to worship you 
as Shiva is just bonkers on Barry's part. I mean maybe you are like up to par 
with the younger, less significant Ashwin twin, or one of the minor ten 
Adhytias, possible Vayau on a bad day, but Shiva no way. (Despite your 
consorts' oft screamed tribute oh, my God!!)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened and FFL, continued



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

 Robin,
 
 Well this is all getting a bit Jr High but I am happy to explain further once 
 you read the full line on my post to Barry.
 
 In the beginning of our conversations I just assumed you were gay. I believed 
 the Lady Gaga discussions were code like friend of Dorthy.  Over time I 
 began to question my assumptions and once we emailed each other outside the 
 more dramatic context of FFL I decided that I had been wrong.  But it was 
 never a putdown on you to have thought that. 

Why would thinking someone gay, or transgender, be a put down? Its like we are 
living in Don Draper days, only the subhumans are no longer women or blacks but 
humans with a different orientation than than those making the slurs and put 
downs.   

And wearing womens' clothes? All of the women I see day to day are generally 
dressed in shorts and t-shirts and sandals in the summer, and jeans and 
non-gender specific shirts in the winter. Some do wear shoes that make them 
appear a bit taller, hiking boots, but they are not like pink hiking boots. Am 
I a cross dresser if I dress like that? (Next you are going to tell me I can't 
wear my powdered wig! As if our founding fathers were not balsey enough for 
you.)


 We both have dramatic sides that could lead to people thinking I was gay.  I 
couldn't care less.  
 
 In the context of Barry calling you a drama-queen I don't believe he meant it 
 as a gay slur, he calls Jim that all the time and he is well known as hetero. 
  Perhaps in later posts he went further I don't know.
 
 But please don't hold it against me ( unfortunate phrase I know) if in the 
 beginning I speculated about your orientation.  It was sincere confusion.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  And because you're one of my buds and all, I'll go even further. First,
  I'll avoid giving away the real source of the Robin wears women's
  clothing when he posts line that someone found so offensive here.
  Second, I'll promise not to reveal the details of any of those private
  email exchanges that some on the vigilante squads have accused us
  of having behind their backs in our continuing attempts to tell lies
  about them, TM, Maharishi, and the American Way. Third, I'll
  listen to more of the Delta Blues from time to time, even though
  it's not my favorite kinda music. [BW: November 2, 2011]
  
  RESPONSE: Am I to take from this disclosure by B, Curtis, that you have 
  falsely and knowingly implied there is a real source to this Robin wears 
  women's clothing when he posts? It sounds as if you have stated to B that 
  you indeed have evidence of my more than feminine side. I challenge you to 
  deny this in the strongest terms, since it is absolutely false. And I 
  accuse youif you insinuated to B that you did in fact possess such 
  evidenceof being a liar and a deceiver. A real Iago kind of guy.
  
  What's the deal here, Curtis? Did you let B know that his suspicions about 
  me were founded in fact? And you have have access to this fact?
  
  This, if it is true, is the ultimate deal-breaker. And it dishonours your 
  nameunless you can, of course, explain yourself.
  
  Robin
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   Barry,
   
   
   That's where I think the real connection to FFL -- especially recently
   -- comes in. This place has been a hotbed of people asserting that they
   not only have the right to try to change people they don't like, they've
   been asserting that it's some kind of ethical or moral duty, and that
   anyone who *doesn't* do as they do and try to impose their view of how
   things should be on others is ethically deficient.
   
   Bzt. As Curtis has pointed out so well, this just does not compute.
   The only environment in which such a 'tude *does* compute is a cult,
   especially one that has a history of treating its members like children
   who need to be corrected by their betters. In other words, the TM
   movement.
   
   Such a sense of entitlement has no place on a forum composed of adults.
   Adults don't really need anyone to stand up for them when someone says
   something about them that they might not agree with. Adults suck it up
   and realize that the other person's view of them is just as valid as
   their own. They don't go around trying to impose their values on other
   people; they just do what adults do, try to do their best to live up to
   their own values, and allow others to do the same. Groups can't become
   cults if the people in them act like adults. They can only become cults
   if most of them act like children, and as if the gurus and the fellow
   cultists around them trying to make them more like them are right.
   
   Hey Barry,
   
   Hey listen, uh...I've been hearing some things from people that you said 
   some things that they don't like and found

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened and FFL, continued



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
  and especially don't want it used outside the intended context to make me 
  look like a dick.
   
  
  That is totally over the top. I mean Curtis, you seem like a nice guy, 
  maybe even an awesome guy, but for Barry to equate you with Shiva, and to 
  worship you as Shiva is just bonkers on Barry's part. I mean maybe you are 
  like up to par with the younger, less significant Ashwin twin, or one of 
  the minor ten Adhytias, possible Vayau on a bad day, but Shiva no way. 
  (Despite your consorts' oft screamed tribute oh, my God!!)
 
 If you are asking if you can pour warm ghee on it, the answer is yes, but 
 please make sure it isn't too hot.
 

As fans of Janis (and who is not) used to offer her bottles of Southern Comfort 
that she would imbib in stage (loosens the vocal chords, even one of our famed 
sidha ex rockers said sipping before a concert was golden), I hear that some of 
your fans, often of the blonde and long legged part of the human genome, are 
prone to offer you jars of warm ghee on stage (well, sidewalk) hoping you will 
self anoint your self during or after your songs. Hope springs eternal for 
them. Just make sure no one is smoking withing 10 feet. That could be a 
disaster -- and could inspire a round of self-imolations among the OWS crowd, 
remenicent of Saigaon in 1963.  Your sacrafice might actually be the trigger of 
the Grand phase transition. (I know life would change for you.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs diet quirks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Vaj wrote:
 
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
  
  Interesting article on Steve Jobs dietary quirks (not too unlike some 
  quirks people have here) and comments by nutritional experts:
  http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/02/8598251-the-strange-eating-habits-of-steve-jobs
  
  
  Yeah, Jobs (whose strange health habits were fairly well known) reminds me 
  a lot of TM Org and other New Ages faddists: weird diets, odd 
  supplementation regimes, unusual approaches to disease and avoidance of 
  modern mainstream healthcare. Often these are taken to obsessive and 
  excessive levels: worrying about the latest-greatest supplements or dosing 
  up on Indian or Chinese herbs to the point of heavy-metal overload.
 
 It was the carrots-and-apples-for-weeks that
 kind of got to me.  Besides overload, really
 boring.   Probably explain his shifting
 moods too. Not such a great idea being CEO of a 
 major company, holding meetings, etc while you're
 basically starving yourself.  Wonder what his 
 wife's take on all of that including his
 unconventional ideas on his cancer treatment was.
 
  Jobs clearly signed his own death certificate with the strange idea that he 
  could force a rare form of pancreatic CA into remission through diet. 
  Occasionally you'll see someone who gets lucky with such an approach, but 
  almost invariably these types just suddenly disappear. Gone.
  
  The only good news in this case is now I may eventually get Flash on my 
  iPad
 
 Really?  So then they should work with, say,
 Amazon instant videos?  That would be nice.
 Just one more thing to thank Steve for.
 

 Sal

Presumably the $199 Amazon Kindle Fire will also play Amazon Instant Video. And 
for Prime members, much of that library is free. An offer I-tunes lacks (or 
have I missed that.) Amazon Instant Video recently acquired access to all PBS 
content. The expands their library a lot -- for quality programming (should one 
be inclined towards documentaries -- I like a lot of their stuff.) 

Way cheaper tablet, way cheaper content. And Droid Honeycomb looks great.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs Last Words



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Vaj wrote:
 
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
  
  Interesting article on Steve Jobs dietary quirks (not too unlike some 
  quirks people have here) and comments by nutritional experts:
  http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/02/8598251-the-strange-eating-habits-of-steve-jobs
  
  
  Yeah, Jobs (whose strange health habits were fairly well known) reminds me 
  a lot of TM Org and other New Ages faddists: weird diets, odd 
  supplementation regimes, unusual approaches to disease and avoidance of 
  modern mainstream healthcare. Often these are taken to obsessive and 
  excessive levels: worrying about the latest-greatest supplements or dosing 
  up on Indian or Chinese herbs to the point of heavy-metal overload.
 
 It was the carrots-and-apples-for-weeks that
 kind of got to me.  Besides overload, really
 boring.   Probably explain his shifting
 moods too. Not such a great idea being CEO of a 
 major company, holding meetings, etc while you're
 basically starving yourself.  Wonder what his 
 wife's take on all of that including his
 unconventional ideas on his cancer treatment was.
 
  Jobs clearly signed his own death certificate with the strange idea that he 
  could force a rare form of pancreatic CA into remission through diet. 
  Occasionally you'll see someone who gets lucky with such an approach, but 
  almost invariably these types just suddenly disappear. Gone.

His sister said his last words were Oh Wow. Oh Wow, Oh Wow as he looked past 
his family surrounding him, into the broader expanse of the room. Like he saw 
something not apparent to the bystanders. Reminiscent of  other death, near 
death reports. Something roughly parallel when my dad died. And my mom said 
similar when her mom died.

( I know. Sometimes I slip out of rational, empirical mode into sentimental 
spiritualism state. Damn, slap me.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs diet quirks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:

 On 11/02/2011 05:57 PM, tartbrain wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@  wrote:
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Vaj wrote:
 
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
 
  Interesting article on Steve Jobs dietary quirks (not too unlike some
  quirks people have here) and comments by nutritional experts:
  http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/02/8598251-the-strange-eating-habits-of-steve-jobs
 
  Yeah, Jobs (whose strange health habits were fairly well known) reminds 
  me a lot of TM Org and other New Ages faddists: weird diets, odd 
  supplementation regimes, unusual approaches to disease and avoidance of 
  modern mainstream healthcare. Often these are taken to obsessive and 
  excessive levels: worrying about the latest-greatest supplements or 
  dosing up on Indian or Chinese herbs to the point of heavy-metal overload.
  It was the carrots-and-apples-for-weeks that
  kind of got to me.  Besides overload, really
  boring.   Probably explain his shifting
  moods too. Not such a great idea being CEO of a
  major company, holding meetings, etc while you're
  basically starving yourself.  Wonder what his
  wife's take on all of that including his
  unconventional ideas on his cancer treatment was.
 
  Jobs clearly signed his own death certificate with the strange idea that 
  he could force a rare form of pancreatic CA into remission through diet. 
  Occasionally you'll see someone who gets lucky with such an approach, but 
  almost invariably these types just suddenly disappear. Gone.
 
  The only good news in this case is now I may eventually get Flash on my 
  iPad
  Really?  So then they should work with, say,
  Amazon instant videos?  That would be nice.
  Just one more thing to thank Steve for.
 
 
  Sal
  Presumably the $199 Amazon Kindle Fire will also play Amazon Instant Video. 
  And for Prime members, much of that library is free. An offer I-tunes lacks 
  (or have I missed that.) Amazon Instant Video recently acquired access to 
  all PBS content. The expands their library a lot -- for quality programming 
  (should one be inclined towards documentaries -- I like a lot of their 
  stuff.)
 
  Way cheaper tablet, way cheaper content. And Droid Honeycomb looks great.
 
 The Kindle Fire will be running Gingerbread Android 2.33 not Honeycomb. 

Thanks for the clarification. Can the fire be upgraded to Honeycomb, or is that 
a round peg in a square hole sort of thing?

And the Fire, as I understand, is Amazons quick to market for Christmas season. 
The REAL tablet which they have spend most of their time and resources 
developing, and lots of consumer sessions, is coming in spring 2012. Hopefully 
that will run the latest version of Droid.

 I just want the Amazon app on my Bluray player and have been waiting 
 over a year for it. There are almost no devices that have everything 
 however.


Yes, there are always tradeoffs of features, and of costs. Until omnicience 
dawns, I guess we are stuck with compromise. (Or until the dissolution of mind 
states that see gadgets, including omnicience as substantive.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: ...no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote:

 Sam Harris on the Mystery of Consciousness I and II from 
 http://www.samharris.org
 
 Harris distinguishes between underlying consciousness and the things 
 entities are conscious of, but seems to skirt around making definitive 
 conclusions as to what consciousness is - relative consciousness of course. 
  Harris briefly ventured into the realm of mystical Consciousness in a 
 previous book, but has backtracked from that venture, leaving anything out 
 related to Pure Consciousness, mysticism, Buddhism, etc.
 ...
 Note that in part I Harris states that there's no evidence for consciousness 
 in the physical world (and by implication, any known world since Harris is a 
 materialist neurophysicist). He completely avoids the question of an 
 afterlife.
 
 The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the 
 physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is like 
 something to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests 
 to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to 
 subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, 
 when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of 
 experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we 
 would find no evidence of it in the physical universenor would we have any 
 notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness 
 of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no 
 description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective 
 reality into view.


Harris wishes to incorporate spirituality in the domain of human reason. He 
draws inspiration from the practices of Eastern religion, in particular that of 
meditation, as described principally by Hindu and Buddhist practitioners. By 
paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience, Harris 
suggests, it is possible to make our sense of self vanish and thereby uncover 
a new state of personal well-being. Moreover, Harris argues that such states of 
mind should be subjected to formal scientific investigation, without 
incorporating the myth and superstition that often accompanies meditation in 
the religious context. There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly 
empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God, 
he writes.[14]p. 214.

Despite his anti-religious sentiments, Sam Harris also claims that there is 
nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of 
many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely 
among the most valuable experiences a person can have.[10]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs diet quirks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:57 PM, tartbrain wrote:
 
  
  The only good news in this case is now I may eventually get Flash on my 
  iPad
  
  Really?  So then they should work with, say,
  Amazon instant videos?  That would be nice.
  Just one more thing to thank Steve for.
  
  
  Sal
  
  Presumably the $199 Amazon Kindle Fire will also play Amazon Instant Video. 
  And for Prime members, much of that library is free. An offer I-tunes lacks 
  (or have I missed that.) Amazon Instant Video recently acquired access to 
  all PBS content. The expands their library a lot -- for quality programming 
  (should one be inclined towards documentaries -- I like a lot of their 
  stuff.) 
  
  Way cheaper tablet, way cheaper content. And Droid Honeycomb looks great.   
 
 Agreed.  We have Prime, and love it, so will probably
 get a Fire as well.  But it sure would be nice to be
 able to also use our iPad for that too.
 Sal


Or maybe cutting board, ping pong paddle, dinner plate, square frisbee, snow 
scapper, paper weight, body armor, target practice. 

Actually, I am thinking about the ipad 3 when it emerges --  1080p resolution 
as I understand -- and lots of other improvements (and curved glass case -- I 
would not pay extra for it, but sounds interesting. ) Or Fire II. 

I have a Dell Streak 7 now (for $150 through a botched 4g t-mobile contract), 
nice, but not quite there.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs diet quirks



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote:

 On 11/02/2011 06:49 PM, tartbrain wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@  wrote:
  On 11/02/2011 05:57 PM, tartbrain wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@   wrote:
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Vaj wrote:
 
  On Nov 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
 
  Interesting article on Steve Jobs dietary quirks (not too unlike some
  quirks people have here) and comments by nutritional experts:
  http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/02/8598251-the-strange-eating-habits-of-steve-jobs
  Yeah, Jobs (whose strange health habits were fairly well known) reminds 
  me a lot of TM Org and other New Ages faddists: weird diets, odd 
  supplementation regimes, unusual approaches to disease and avoidance of 
  modern mainstream healthcare. Often these are taken to obsessive and 
  excessive levels: worrying about the latest-greatest supplements or 
  dosing up on Indian or Chinese herbs to the point of heavy-metal 
  overload.
  It was the carrots-and-apples-for-weeks that
  kind of got to me.  Besides overload, really
  boring.   Probably explain his shifting
  moods too. Not such a great idea being CEO of a
  major company, holding meetings, etc while you're
  basically starving yourself.  Wonder what his
  wife's take on all of that including his
  unconventional ideas on his cancer treatment was.
 
  Jobs clearly signed his own death certificate with the strange idea 
  that he could force a rare form of pancreatic CA into remission through 
  diet. Occasionally you'll see someone who gets lucky with such an 
  approach, but almost invariably these types just suddenly disappear. 
  Gone.
 
  The only good news in this case is now I may eventually get Flash on my 
  iPad
  Really?  So then they should work with, say,
  Amazon instant videos?  That would be nice.
  Just one more thing to thank Steve for.
 
 
  Sal
  Presumably the $199 Amazon Kindle Fire will also play Amazon Instant 
  Video. And for Prime members, much of that library is free. An offer 
  I-tunes lacks (or have I missed that.) Amazon Instant Video recently 
  acquired access to all PBS content. The expands their library a lot -- 
  for quality programming (should one be inclined towards documentaries -- 
  I like a lot of their stuff.)
 
  Way cheaper tablet, way cheaper content. And Droid Honeycomb looks great.
  The Kindle Fire will be running Gingerbread Android 2.33 not Honeycomb.
  Thanks for the clarification. Can the fire be upgraded to Honeycomb, or is 
  that a round peg in a square hole sort of thing?
 
 They should skip over 3.2 which is mainly for tablets and do Ice Cream 
 Sandwich or 4.0 which will be better for that device. The Fire only has 
 a 1024x600 screen. But I think the concept is good. My 10 Acer A500 
 plays Netflix WI and movies from the Android Market at 1280x720p. I can 
 also plug it into the HDMI port of a TV and watch that way.

I think wireless streaming from device to large monitors will become the norm 
soon. I have the Netgear thing built into my lap top, Sony Viao. Works pretty 
well, but is tempermental.  Its kind of crazy. My lap top picks up a 20 MB 
wireless wifi connection, which then shoots the HD video wirelessly to my 
flatscreen, and I listen via wireless headphones. (Look ma, no hands.)  

 I suspect 
 that after sales lull for the Fire in the spring Amazon may make a video 
 app available for other tablets. MSpot is another movie service 
 available on Android but I haven't looked into it.
 
  And the Fire, as I understand, is Amazons quick to market for Christmas 
  season. The REAL tablet which they have spend most of their time and 
  resources developing, and lots of consumer sessions, is coming in spring 
  2012. Hopefully that will run the latest version of Droid.
 
 The mobile scene is crazy. Google rushes stuff out and breaks things. 
 They feel they have to do that to stay ahead of the pack. They also 
 don't have much senior management and it shows.

And the quality control on Droid apps is kind of uneven. Some great apps, lots 
of crap. Less so for i-touch apps, but I have some really crappy apple apps too.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Blues



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 
 In other words, heads I win, tails you lose. 

You got it! You are definitely large corporate CEO material (or congressman).


 That seems to be how you
 frame interactions.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   BTW from now on, any missile Barry lobs your way is hereby
   labeled a bang flag on a toy gun, and I will delight in
   pointing our whether it causes you to get freaked about
   it. But only to help you improve your skills understanding
   other people's POV here.
 
  BTW from now on I doubt I will be lobbing any
  even bang flag missiles her way, or Robin's,
  or Bob's. I've done the setup for this week's
  experiment, and now they are free to react as
  they wish. Judy has only one more post this week
  in which to do so, so we'll see how attached she
  is to holding a grudge when she returns next week.
 
  It's been fun chumming the waters a little
  this week, but a kind of fun I will have less
  time for soon, so don't hope for more of it.
 
  When it comes to the people I have taken bang
  flag potshots at, I have either made my case,
  or I have not. Unlike them, I don't feel that
  repeating it ad infinitum is going to convince
  anyone of anything. They are free to continue
  to try to make any case against me they wish,
  if they'd like. As if -- if my assessment of
  them is correct -- they have any choice. :-)
 
  I really am hoping to step away from the news-
  group a little. As you've probably noticed,
  there is little said here that interests me
  intellectually all that much these days; I just
  can't identify with much of it. So I have (mea
  culpa) tried to fill the interest gap by
  perversely pushing a few easily-pushed buttons.
  But there's really no challenge even in that
  any more, since the buttons are SO easily
  pushed. Better I should do like the more
  sensible posters here and just lay low until
  and if something is said that I actually
  find interesting.
 
  Or not. We'll see...

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy


You lived in Snowmass / Aspen? What years? 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 
 Did my SCI at Cobb Mountain the summer or fall of '74.  I remember
 sticking my thumb out at the intersection of Brush Creek Rd. and Hwy. 82
 in Snowmass Colorado and hitchhiking to Cobb Mountain.  Good times!
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
 
  On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:40 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 wrote:
 
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@ wrote:
   
I worked on the Houston (Navasota, Grimes County) capital for
room and board. And yes, shared an unheated cabin. Barhroom
was the bushes outside. Yes, it gets cold in Texas during the
Winter. Maharishi was absolutely right. The movement belongs
to those who move large quantities of cash across national
borders, undetected.
  
   I never went to any of the more modern TM hovels.
   I used to teach a lot of residence courses at
   Soboba (I think the name was) in southern CA,
   and attended many courses at Cobb Mountain in
   northern CA. The former didn't really have much
   personality, but the latter did. It had been
   some kind of camp or retreat facility before
   the TMO acquired it, and I found it charming,
   with its old clapboard cottages and rustic
   camp-era dining/meeting hall. Plus, the fact
   that most everyone was in a separate cottage
   made it easier to fool around on ATR courses. :-)
  
  
  I attended many course at Cobb, including my ?flying? block. My flying
  block had a lot of live wires. The cabins closest to the main
 buildings
  were given to married, senior people. They brought with them the
 proper
  mixings for martinis and had cocktail hour before time to do evening
  program. I went back for many WPAs and the men often flew on what had
  been the dance floor. That place had been a really hopping place for
  Summers and especially the weekend. The dance floor was on springs,
 and
  yes, in typical TMO style, Cobb Mountain had a reputation for lots of
  alcohol flowing, lots of extramarital sex. Back to my flying block. We
  had a fiddler from Boston. When our mommies and daddies went to bed we
 had
  hoe downs outside the main buildings. A couple times we woke up the
 sidhi
  administrators who told us to cut out the dancing and go to bed.
 
  Cobb Mountain was in typical decay and the cabins were drafty as heck.
  And yes, we were within something like 1,500 feet of the tree line so
 it
  got cold, even in Spring and Fall.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy

2011-11-01 Thread tartbrain



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:


 
 You've got the timing wrong.  I remember the first residence course I was
 on which had a governess, one of the first back from Switzerland.   

For what its worth, some recollections of the history as I saw it. 

Depends perhaps on what first back means relative to to progression of 
courses. I was on two back to back 6 mo courses, spring of 2006-spring 2007. 
There was a 6 mo course before us where, as I understand, some experimentation 
with sidhis was done. On my first course, we worked on yoga sutras amd sidhis 
most of the six months, more than the current standard fare, but flying was not 
done. And the CPs from that course were not govs and did not go back and teach 
prep sidhis. That happened for CPs in the course that ended spring of 77. We 
broke into teams of four, divided up the world (ha), though that went pretty 
smoothly, logically, and then went out and taught prep sidhha courses, and flew 
2x in our group. 

From what I recall, MMY did not emphasize we were special or anything, but did 
emphasize to be one pointed. And simple -- a sidha leaves the table still a 
bit hungry was said -- and was a general theme of our activity, though 
sometimes more, sometimes less.  And we were never told to be aloof. We 
blended in and became a part of the meditator community. Like a big group of 
friends. And we had some amazing CPs so humility was natural. We were much 
more on the level of the meditators than the prior org, in my view. Not like 
the four shanks of Regional past. Not at all the same gig or vibe. (And not 
like those sleazy state coordinators, :)) 

There were the famous superman posters were drawn up on that course (in suisse) 
and passed around. But we saw that as more of a joke. Back home, in the field, 
we focused on our program, and the teaching, which was wonderful, the CPs were 
great, but was more a gig to allow us to do our program. Which we were totally 
stoked on doing for our own personal benefit. Not a we need to sacrifice and 
save the world thing. And program in those days was great. Maybe because it was 
so new. And the whole thing was fun. I remember we got laughing so hard, the 
four of us up front during a group meeting that I fell off my chair literally 
laughing. The CPs were all part of that. There was a real group consciousness 
of laughter -- and respect between everyone. A very light atmosphere. In 
beautiful surroundings. And amazing people would emerge asking to be on staff, 
for RB and some course credits. It was a sweet time.  

It was odd a bit in that we were apparently the new organization, as state and 
regional coordinators were dissolved when we hit the streets. M wanted a very 
flat organization with only one level between him and the meditators and 
sidhas.  So CPs and the community may have seen us as a new wave and attached 
whatever was in their heads to that. However, we were pretty humble and focused 
on our program, and getting the word out on this new knowledge, to make it 
available to all of the centers in our area. If anything we felt way unspecial 
and not up to the task we had been given. But things worked out. Wonderful 
support from all. People did lots of nice things to help the whole thing 
unfold. And we really tried to give back and give credit to the centers. 

We heard and saw some feedback where some CPs and all would make some 
superficial eal about this or that attribute of one or all of us. But it was 
silly, maybe unstressing sort of thing. We did not take it seriously. We knew 
we were yokels just trying to have a roof over our heads while we did program. 
Program was the ting --for our own unfoldment, not the world.

Later it began to unravel. Lack of vigilence one of M's often used words of the 
time. Details are unimportant, but within 6 months, things did change. Not so 
much a being special thing, just the opposite but more incompetence, clumsy 
thing. Quite unspecial in that regard. 

Overall it was fun for all (or most) I think. Consciousness playing. 

This
 was when the sidhis were a rocket ship for TM, which had already been
 described by Maharishi as the rocket ship to enlightenment.   This lady
 acted like she didn't shit, let alone did it not stink.  All, initiators,
 TMers, regarded her as though she was a body of light with flesh on top so
 we could see her.   She never denied that she could fly, walk through
 walls, hear our very thoughts.  She actually encouraged the awe about her.
 So did the other governors who came back.It appears Maharishi had
 really hyped the 6 month course participants up, not unlike the way
 initiators had previously been hyped up as being so very special in the
 scheme of manifest Creation.   The Vedic Atom, including Michael Moore,
 came to our area next and they acted like they were God's gift.   I got to
 see some tapes that were meant for initiators at a former ski chalet
 outside of Quebec

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy

This is not a counter rebuttal, simply another view, a point for further 
discussion and examination. 

The tipping point was when a portion (I think it was 11.73% but others may 
quibble on this)of the full time community -- and some ardent part-timers, kept 
clung to the notion that M. and his TMOs were all about, only about, the seven 
step program for teaching 20 min 2x / day. 

A parallel is Apple and Steve Jobs.  When he went more digital (i-tunes, 
i-phone) and creating superb customer experiences (Apple stores) etc, many of 
the faithful said, Huh, what does this have to do with selling Macs and What 
possible effect can a company with 3% market share have on digital music. 
Steve's vision was that Apple was a digital gateway company (or something 
along those lines with a core emphasis on superb design.

Apple would not be the company with the largest market capitalization in the 
world (subject to check) and Steve Jobs would not be revered as the CEO of the 
decade(s), if he limited his vision to selling Macs.   

M. and his TMOs, in my view, were / are about being a Consciousness gateway 
org -- not limited to 20 min 2x, but having 50 product lines that enable 
Consciousness to shine in all parts of a persons life. Yet many whined, when 
will we get OUR old TMO back, 20 min 2x. When will M come to his senses and 
do what he is supposed to do, teach TM.

 

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

 The sense of near-desperation with which some on this forum are hoping
 that Oprah is the new Merv and that TM is finally on the upswing again
 left me thinking about its past, and trying to pinpoint where it all
 went wrong. Many have speculated on this forum about what that phase
 transition moment was, the point at which it all began to unravel and
 go downhill. For many (including luminaries like Charlie Lutes and Jerry
 Jarvis), that point was the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program. Me, I
 have a different theory, and I'm going to rap about it in a little
 mini-essay today. Be warned...this may be a little long (although not
 the length of Robin's epics), and it may piss a few people off. But it's
 what I honestly believe.
 
 I cannot pinpoint the exact day or month or year in which TMers went
 officially bat shit crazy (some TM historian type here may be able to do
 that for us), because I'd already left before it happened. But I can
 pinpoint its nature, and what was said -- and believed -- that caused
 everything after that point to be a loony bin. It's the day that
 Maharishi first tried to convince people that bouncing on their butts on
 slabs of foam in a big room full of other butt-bouncers could end crime,
 change the weather, and bring about world peace.
 
 This pronouncement almost certainly predated the term Maharishi
 Effect, which was invented later to glorify his pronouncement, and
 scientific data made up to make it seem true. But from my point of
 view the fact that ANYONE believed this spiel for even an instant
 signifies the phase transition point from relative sanity to total
 madness.
 
 Try it yourself by performing your own scientific experiment. Go out
 onto the street and pick someone at random, and tell them several things
 that you believe. First, tell them what you heard when you first learned
 TM -- that it was good for you, and that the deep rest enabled you to
 function more efficiently and with less stress. You will probably get a
 general agreement with this. Then say that it is your belief, based on
 scriptures and reported historical instances and such, that some humans
 can develop special powers and abilities (the siddhis) that others have
 not, and possibly even levitate. No one's likely to call you crazy for
 this, because it is after all a matter of belief, and is no weirder
 after all than believing in a heaven filled with angels playing harps or
 that Christ walked on water.
 
 But now tell them that you believe that a number of people as special as
 yourself generate so much Woo Woo by grunting and bouncing around on
 their butts on slabs of foam that THEY CAN CREATE WORLD PEACE, all by
 themselves, with no further action needed. My bet is that the strangers
 you've selected for this experiment are going to start edging away from
 you nervously, if not actually running down the street away from you.
 The very idea is absurd, and based on a level of self-importance that
 most people on the planet associate only with full-blown insanity.
 
 As I've said, I'd left the TMO before Maharishi ever started talking
 about this. If I'd still been there I would have laughed in his face and
 walked out of the room, never to return. So I find it difficult to
 imagine people listening to it and being SO self-absorbed and
 self-important that they actually bought it.
 
 The TM-Sidhis were originally introduced as a means to an end, a way to
 speed up the enlightenment process. There was not a WORD about what
 performing them might do for

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mystery of Consciousness

One, a person, generally only knows consciousness when it is shining on 
something tangible. We are aware of the tree, but not, generally aware of the 
light of Awareness that enables us to be aware of the tree. Like the sun, we 
often are not aware of the sun at all, only the objects that it illuminates. 
And making the analogy more on point, we never see the sunlight, unless it is 
reflected by dust in the air, or until it hits an object. We are lost to it. 

Yet the sun knows its own warmth, its own radiance, in a silent powerful way. 
It is awareness, the projection light inside of us, AND all of the light 
everywhere that enable the body to see objects.Its all Light, everywhere, 
inside and outside. 

The sun everywhere never changes. Its reflection can change. The tree looks 
different a noon than it does at sunset. And rocks only reflect a small portion 
of the sunlight even though in itself the sunlight does not change, and 
Consciousness still knows itself when shining on the rock. Other things, the 
famous lake or pond reflect better what always was -- that the sun knows 
itself everywhere that it shines (which is everywhere).

That is a reflection of my experience in words, and how I have come to 
understand it, but words are like rocks, they don't reflect the Sun that well.


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@ wrote:
  
  the moment one knows consciousness, it is no longer consciousness. Â  
  Therefore, again, it is impossible for the human brain to truly grasp or 
  understand what consciousness is. 
 
 Is this ^ the experience people here have had - 
 that becoming aware of consciousness makes 
 it something other than consciousness?
 
 I thought the whole point of many meditation 
 practices was to provide an opportunity for 
 consciousness to be aware of itself. Most of 
 us here either practice or used to practice a 
 meditation technique. What's your experience?
 
 Thanks.

[FairfieldLife] Collective consciousness (was Re: The Day That TMers Became Officially Crazy)


Collective Consciousness is Consciousness. Consciousness can't be collected. 
(Please sir, we are collecting for the United Fund of Consciousness, can you 
please donate a piece of Consciousness to our collection?)

But 1000 mirrors reflect the sun that knows itself and is everywhere better 
than one mirror.


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
 
  make a
  rational case, based on real, accepted science, for how it could be
  actually *true* that a few people ... could produce world peace.
 
 I don't think anyone can explain the notion of 
 collective consciousness *based on accepted 
 science.* The Maharishi Effect is premised on 
 the existence of collective consciousness, and 
 collective consciousness has not been 
 scientifically demonstrated to exist, has it? 
 
 Which brings up a question I'd like to ask the 
 group. We have people here from various wisdom 
 traditions. Has anyone here encountered a theory 
 of collective consciousness in a teaching other 
 than Maharishi's?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mystery of Consciousness



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Consciousness is Consciousness. It does not develop.  
  It does not become.  
 
 Bravo. This is the first intelligent thing said
 here in weeks.


They are just words. And words provoke different mind states in different 
people. The words nor the mind states are neither good or bad, intelligent or 
dumb.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, feste37 feste37@... wrote:
 
  Apparently Oprah was in the dome in Fairfield tonight, meditating with the
  ladies.
 
 
 
 Not just that, but campus as abuzz (at least those who meditate) about Oprah
 and her staff of 50 learning TM.   This is being seen as the next explosion
 of TM, bigger (at least in the hips I suppose) than the Merv Wave.

Sorry for being out of touch with celebrity mysticism, but I thought Oprah has 
been practicing TM for a long time (like 20 + years). And the school for girls 
she opened in South Africa was (TM) Consciousness Based Education.  Not so?

If so, its funny if she had to have her staff learn TM. I don't know how things 
actually operate at Chez Oprah, but I assume staffers know which way the wind 
blows and don't need prodding to get in tune with the masters thinking and 
feelings. That is, why would they have not started on their own, some time ago?

And why are talk show hosts particularly drawn to TM? And is Dave next? I look 
forward to the new top 10's: Top ten reasons why my Dome passes was revoked, 
Top ten reasons why Dave is not yet hoovering. Or YF on the Stupid People 
Tricks segments. 

And why didn't Oprah buy HM?

Or wait, the pieces are falling together. Was Oprah in FF to discuss how she 
was the money behind AOL an that she had really bought HM and was giving it to 
King Tony -- the rightful, eternal owner?  Or is she facilitating a huge group 
hug between TMO and AOL? As a basis for the new film she is producing, Breath, 
Sing, Hop.

 BTW, SSRS is going to be in Boone, NC this weekend.   This and it being
 rainy in North Carolina and cold in the North near the course, well, true
 signs that we are all very special people, having been born into the dawning
 of a golden millenial age as predicted by astrologers for this and each of
 the last 3600 years.  AND FamilyRadio.com has finally gotten the date right
 for the end of the world.   It's going to be on Saturday.  Unlike previous
 ends of the world, this one is going to be much more subtle, more on the
 level of someone writing another Left Behind book.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  Apparently Oprah was in the dome in Fairfield tonight, 
  meditating with the ladies.
 
 Why wasn't she denied a dome pass for seeing other
 teachers such as Eckhart Tolle? You would be, after
 all.


Is Tolle considered a saint? Does the ban go to lower levels than saints? Any 
self-help group (or group consciousness assembly) is forbidden? Going to a Tony 
Robbins seminar? Going to an annual Apple forum? Going to a rally themed The 
time for change has come!, going to an Occupy Wt St Rally? Watching a cooking 
show? Watching an exercise video? Going to a foootball game?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
 
  On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:25 AM, feste37 wrote:
  
   Oprah spent 7 hours in Fairfield, apparently. Landed at 
   Fairfield airport at ll and stayed until 6. Visited the 
   Maharishi School as well as the Dome.
   
   Poor Turq reminds me of the way the right-wing attacks 
   Obama. He's a socialist! He's a Muslim! He hates America! 
   He's an illegal immigrant!  Why can't you all see that? 
   Of course, sensible people make their own judgments and 
   see that such attacks are all nonsense, which is why Obama's 
   personal popularity remains reasonably high. Same with TM. 
   Those who are not infected with hatred and malice are capable 
   of making fair judgments about what it has to offer. 
  
  And of course your attempt to dodge a perfectly 
  logical question doesn't reflect hatred and malice
  or, for that matter, condescension, right?  In
  case you forgot, here it is again:
  
  Why wasn't she denied a dome pass for seeing other
  teachers such as Eckhart Tolle? You would be, after
  all. 
  
  Dodge all you want, of course.  But it leaves you 
  with zero credibility.  Not that you exactly had much
  before.
 
 Might I remind everyone of a Subject line I wrote
 recently, You don't believe what we believe, 
 therefore you hate it...and us. 
 
 All cultists are the same. If they've been indcoc-
 trinated to believe in the all positive nature
 of their cult or its teacher or its teachings, 
 there is a tendency to react to any criticism of
 them by 1) lashing out at the critics, 2) calling
 them liars, 3) and accusing them of the same hatred
 that they themselves are *demonstrating*.
 
 As Sal points out, all I did in my first post is
 ask a viable question. Why *wasn't* Oprah Winfrey
 denied a dome pass, when feste and Nabby and shukra
 all would have been denied a pass if they admitted
 to seeing the same teachers that Oprah has? My bet 
 is that none of the TBs will address this question. 
 
 My second post was merely questioning why (if it turns
 out to be true) Oprah's staff haven't been doing their
 job by properly vetting any potentially controversial
 subject before allowing her to go all Oprah on it on
 her show? Seems to me she'd want to know about all of
 this stuff. 
 
 What they're objecting to IS her knowing about it. 
 They would prefer that Oprah only heard the good
 stuff, the positive stuff that is the veneer of
 the TMO, and never get to see below the surface.
 My suggestion is that this is no longer likely to
 happen, the way it did back during the Merv days.
 The Internet has changed everything in terms of
 freedom of information. If nothing else, anyone
 who Googles Oprah and TM will find these
 threads on Fairfield Life. They'll pop right
 to the top.
 
 Interestingly, I would have *no objection* to TM 
 becoming popular again and being taught widely,
 with a number of caveats. First, it should be taught
 for what it's worth -- maximum $75.00 US.

Are you going to set prices for all goods and services, or just TM?


 Second, it
 should be taught standalone, as a simple technique
 of meditation, and not as a gateway drug to the 
 TMO's other, far more expensive courses.


Are you going to regulate all bundled products and services or just TM? (No 
bundling I-tunes with I-phones!)

 Third, that
 other than providing free checking, there is no 
 attempt by the TMO to upsell new meditators and
 get them to learn the sidhis or move to Fairfield
 and become part of the dome scene.

You sort of get the pattern by now. However your ideas have merit. Command and 
Control economies. What a brilliant idea. And by the way, M. may love your 
idea. Command and Control, hmmm, very good.   

 
 But that's never going to happen. TM *is* being
 marketed as the gateway drug to a cult. 

Is Apple a cult? Is the NFL a cult? 

[ obligatory :) since humor, or weird attemtps to simulate such,  sometimes is 
misread here.

Its leaders
 won't be happy until everyone who signed up for a 
 simple technique practiced 20 minutes morning and
 evening has completely changed their lives to revolve
 around spending several hours a day in the domes. 
 And Oprah Winfrey should know that before she backs 
 the simple 20/20 technique on her show. There is not 
 a chance on earth that the TMO will *not* attempt to 
 suck new meditators into the larger organization, 
 and try to indoctrinate them the way its now-aging 
 membership has been indoctrinated for decades. The 
 public should be aware of this upselling *before* 
 they start TM. 
 
 What the TBs who are trying to demonize me for
 saying this are afraid of is that the public WILL
 become aware of this. The TBs would prefer that
 they hear only the PR version of TM. And they'll
 lash out like the cultists they are at anyone who
 suggests that the public has a right to know more.
 They'd rather keep them in the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall thomas.pall@... wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, feste37 feste37@... wrote:
 
  Apparently Oprah was in the dome in Fairfield tonight, meditating with the
  ladies.
 
 
 
 Not just that, but campus as abuzz (at least those who meditate) about Oprah
 and her staff of 50 learning TM.   This is being seen as the next explosion
 of TM, bigger (at least in the hips I suppose) than the Merv Wave.

Rumor has it she has been on the phone non-stop rounding up the troops for a 
mega-international TV show on TM.  Out merving Merv. The only hold out so far 
is Clint. He apparently said, I will only come if you get that crazy, bad-ass 
guy from Regional to drive me around again.




 
 BTW, SSRS is going to be in Boone, NC this weekend.   This and it being
 rainy in North Carolina and cold in the North near the course, well, true
 signs that we are all very special people, having been born into the dawning
 of a golden millenial age as predicted by astrologers for this and each of
 the last 3600 years.  AND FamilyRadio.com has finally gotten the date right
 for the end of the world.   It's going to be on Saturday.  Unlike previous
 ends of the world, this one is going to be much more subtle, more on the
 level of someone writing another Left Behind book.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  The thing I don't get is who expects the TMO and the Rajas and Maharishi to 
  be perfect? That every lecture will be riveting, that every course will be 
  a mega breakthrough for all, blue skies all the way? That there is a 
  program that brings instantaneous sublime peace to us immediately, every 
  time?
  
  This is hard work, as hard as it is enjoyable; the unraveling of ourselves, 
  to be reconstituted after light has penetrated every facet of our being. 
  Every part of us, inside and out, seen for what it is. The 20 minutes twice 
  a day TM was the easy part, the mechanical grinding away of the 
  ever-present top soil, the unknotting of the body-mind.
  
  Then we are left with ourselves, eyelids dissolved, silent, naked, healthy, 
  clear, and balanced, looking innocently into us. The expression here and 
  now can be said easily enough, but to integrate all the pieces of our 
  experience that we are now exposed to, to live the inherent perfection of 
  the system is more challenging. Always a moving target, and yet one that 
  can be apprehended with silence and grace.
 
 
 Beautiful and yet scary.
 
 Once Maharishi mentioned that for Brahman to be lived everything must 
 experienced and digested including everything we today perceive as darkness.
 From what I know that was the first time he mentioned negativity as a means 
 for a growth. 
 
 The audience were all long-timers and Maharishi certainly gave us a cigar 
 that evening :-)
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
   
   Because the so-called dark sides amounts to nothing, it's dark in your 
   little beer-drowned consciousness. That's all.
   
   

While I understand Oprah's tendency to buy into
Woo Woo, what I don't understand is her support 
staff's failure to clue her in to some of the
darker sides of the TMO, such as the robes and
crowns,
   
   What's wrong with that ? Being a so-called Buddhist and someone who 
   thinks that world famous Lama is a good guy should be accustomed to 
   crownsrobes by now.
   
murder on the MUM campus,
   
   1 murder by some unbalanced fellow in a place that has housed hundreds of 
   thousands of people during the last 40 years amounts to nothing.
   
banning people
   
   It's not a crime. If you want to get in you follow the rules. Or go 
   somewhere else. Any workplace, any organizations has rules.
   
   
   The darkness is in your brain only :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Oprah in the dome tonight



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  The thing I don't get is who expects the TMO and the Rajas and Maharishi to 
  be perfect? That every lecture will be riveting, that every course will be 
  a mega breakthrough for all, blue skies all the way? That there is a 
  program that brings instantaneous sublime peace to us immediately, every 
  time?
  
  This is hard work, as hard as it is enjoyable; the unraveling of ourselves, 
  to be reconstituted after light has penetrated every facet of our being. 
  Every part of us, inside and out, seen for what it is. The 20 minutes twice 
  a day TM was the easy part, the mechanical grinding away of the 
  ever-present top soil, the unknotting of the body-mind.
  
  Then we are left with ourselves, eyelids dissolved, silent, naked, healthy, 
  clear, and balanced, looking innocently into us. The expression here and 
  now can be said easily enough, but to integrate all the pieces of our 
  experience that we are now exposed to, to live the inherent perfection of 
  the system is more challenging. Always a moving target, and yet one that 
  can be apprehended with silence and grace.
 
 
 Beautiful and yet scary.
 
 Once Maharishi mentioned that for Brahman to be lived everything must 
 experienced and digested including everything we today perceive as darkness.
 From what I know that was the first time he mentioned negativity as a means 
 for a growth. 

Darkness and negativity, (even Turq), are mind states. They are attributes that 
come from you, from your mind, not things that have an external objective 
reality. 

The mind itself is a mind state. In a feedback loop that is so compelling we 
can forget its there, an infinite regress of reflections of mirrors within 
mirrors, the mind creates itself, and then all of the attribute it lays on the 
world: good, bad, dark light, appropriate, inappropriate, right, wrong. It 
creates the world, makes boundaries where no boundaries exist.  

Work is a mind state.  You can take it seriously, as a objective reality, or 
you can see its your own creation. Every part of us, inside and out are mind 
states. You can take them seriously and breath life into them. Or not. 

Take it easy, take it as it comes means let go of mind states and all they 
create.  Enjoy the gap between the work and play.  Enjoy the space in which 
they play.


 
 The audience were all long-timers and Maharishi certainly gave us a cigar 
 that evening :-)
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote:
  
   
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
   
   Because the so-called dark sides amounts to nothing, it's dark in your 
   little beer-drowned consciousness. That's all.
   
   

While I understand Oprah's tendency to buy into
Woo Woo, what I don't understand is her support 
staff's failure to clue her in to some of the
darker sides of the TMO, such as the robes and
crowns,
   
   What's wrong with that ? Being a so-called Buddhist and someone who 
   thinks that world famous Lama is a good guy should be accustomed to 
   crownsrobes by now.
   
murder on the MUM campus,
   
   1 murder by some unbalanced fellow in a place that has housed hundreds of 
   thousands of people during the last 40 years amounts to nothing.
   
banning people
   
   It's not a crime. If you want to get in you follow the rules. Or go 
   somewhere else. Any workplace, any organizations has rules.
   
   
   The darkness is in your brain only :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mystery of Consciousness



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote:

 The paradox of consciousness is that it takes a highly developed sentient 
 being to understand that it is the basis of creation of the universe.  As 
 such, this same being can understand that consciousness is different in 
 various level of existence.  For example, a dog has consciousness that is 
 less developed than humans.  But a dog's consciousness is higher than that of 
 a tree.

Consciousness is Consciousness. It does not develop. It does not become.  

 
 Similarly, the tree has a higher level of consiousness than that of a rock.  
 This continuum follows through the minutest particles in the universe.  At 
 the most profound level, one can see that there must be a a consciousness 
 that created space and time and that started the evolution of matter from the 
 quarks to human beings.
 
 If you graph the energy output of the universe from the beginning to the end, 
 you will see that the energy was at the infinite level at the time of the Big 
 Bang.  This is the paradox that scientists do not accept or understand since 
 their equations break down at the instant of creation.
 
 Conversely, it appears now that the energy output of the universe will 
 continue to dissipate ad infinitum.  In other words, the universe started 
 from infinity and will end in infinity.
 
 But throughout all of this cosmic lifecycle, Consiousness exists and will 
 continue to do so forever in the Unified Field.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ 
 wrote:
 
  Sam Harris has published two blog posts on consciousness in the past couple 
  of weeks.
  
  http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
  
  http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/
  
  As consciousness is occasionally a subject entertained on this forum, 
  perhaps these essays will interest someone.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin

2011-10-19 Thread tartbrain

Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own 
insights and playful viewing of things.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Dear Barry Wright,
 
 If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, 
 acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest 
 post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall 
 cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the 
 refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. 

Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It 
seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to 
periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather 
joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may 
be another way of getting at the term philosophies).

 Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the 
 motives of others when they write to myself. 

And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way.

So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is false

Everything? Absolutely everything? There is no grey, no nuance, no alternative 
views, no other possibilities? Its all black and white -- you are absolutely 
right and he is absolutely wrong, without qualification?

 (I assume it is basically false as well with respect to the other persons who 
 you categorize as being ministered to by the missionary charity of Curtis; 
 but I don't profess to know this for a dead certainty). Let's put it this 
 way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to me for reasons which directly 
 contradict what he formally professes are his reasons. 

Not referencing Curtis per se, but is it a real stunner that sometimes people 
are not aware of the full basis and root of their motivations? Are you 
absolutely in tune with and understand to the depth of your own existence, 
clear on all of the myriad of motivations typically driving any actions or 
behaviors? And if you answer yes, how would you really know that. It seems all 
of us are blind to our delusions and blindspots -- else they would not be blind 
spots. If your premise is that you have absolutely no blind spots, well, that's 
fascinating. But again, how would you know? 

Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have conducted an 
offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within this context 
would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing 
to me, a psychopathic monster.

Girlfriends I am sure have called him worse.

 I will simply say, Barry, you are as inherently wrong about your 
 characterization of Curtis, as I am objectively right in my attribution of 
 his motives in writing to me,

Me absolutely right, you absolutely wrong. That is an interesting pattern in 
your writing and expressed views (as it is in some others at times).

 viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. 

All? No more room for uncovering deeper levels of mind and heart that he has 
not yet fathomed? Curtis is at the end of his road developmentally?


And I let this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said 
hereor even qualifies it in any wayI will assume that I am right and you, 
terribly, perversely wrong.

Black and white, day and night. (Though I suppose Day for Night might be 
closer to the truth. That is, for most people, not all things are as the appear 
to be. Most people accept this, humbly, and practically.) 

 You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here 
 either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: 

Is Curtis so slow he needs to be challenged twice?

if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven infinitesimally

Even infinitesimally? Not room for even one photon of variance (or in Curtis's 
case, deviance -- the thrill and nuances of deviance appears to be something, 
as we all perhaps should enjoy, that Curtis thrives on. Quirky and dancing to 
the sound of his own drummer.  

of what you have said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for 
the record, that you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. 

Egregious. No room for any subtlety or nuance. 

And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. 

String this savage up for bearing false witness.

If I had the very slightest doubt 

Awesome that you have not here, and appear never to have, the slightest doubt. 
A mentor, quite bright, has said many times I don't know. Not in some casual 
way, but really I DONT KNOW!. That state of detachment for me can be 
liberating, if not unsettling at times.  Some traditions (EmptyBill can 
elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for 
sure is on the verge of wisdom.

about all that I have said here, Barry, I would

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin

2011-10-19 Thread tartbrain


Thank you for your thoughts. I realize that a quick early morning drive by from 
a stranger may lack a bit of context. Perhaps I can expand on that a bit. I was 
not arguing with you nor finding fault in your position. And not judging you, 
which was a concern in one of your responses. I was fascinated in what I 
perceived to be the dichotomous nature of your views, a la, this or that, no 
middle ground. However, my quick take was solely on your response to Turq. 

I do not have the context of your other writings. (To be honest, I have not 
read many of your posts, and this is a personal preference only, not an 
evaluative comment, because for me your writing style has a density level 
outside of the range of my efficient (or comfortable) intake of ideas and 
concepts.) Thus I am quite aware that I may have picked up a flavor that was 
not present. And confirmational bias can always slip in -- having an initial 
concept/framework, an initial hypothesis, and then seeing how subsequent 
perceptions support the hypothesis (out of whack to the fuller context.)   

That said, I was drawn into the flavor of your comments, and fascinated enough 
to respond (albeit in rapid, casual, non-edited, not well considered early 
morning way). And anything I saw in them, or anything for that matter, are 
first and foremost the projections of my own mind. I assume I was drawn to 
them, as I perceived it, the non-nunance, absoluteness of your statements, 
because such exists with me -- though frankly, not consciously (perhaps a 
personal blind spot). My style is to work with such takes of mine, explore 
them, come to understand them better, first and foremost to loosen up any such 
quirks within my self, to sensitize myself to the possibility that I do at 
times precisely what I am finding odd in others. (And to clarify, I am not 
evaluating you as odd, I am evaluating the oddness (after all its my 
perception) of my own mindstate.

I try to do such in playful ways. (My quip about Curtis' gfs saying worse about 
him was a joke, which at least in my mind's eye I could see Curtis chuckling 
about, though my sensitivities may be way of base.)  Sometimes such may come 
across quite focused and serious sounding, when not intended. 

Your comments, and I admit that I have not fully digested them,  provide 
stimuli for more reflection and hopefully insight. If some strike me as 
interesting discussion, perhaps we can extend the dialogue.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
 Re: Conversation between Curtis  Robin
 
 Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own
 insights and playful viewing of things.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Dear Barry Wright,
 
 MZ: If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself,
 acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest 
 post,
 gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease
 posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation
 and destruction of my entire philosophy.
 
 TB: Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of 
 ours. It
 seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to
 periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather
 joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which 
 may
 be another way of getting at the term philosophies).
 
 RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having 
 my philosophy destroyedif I could experience it was being destroyed by 
 something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual 
 contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the 
 validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with 
 reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to 
 what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will 
 be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to 
 my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive 
 and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of 
 what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I 
 am writing hereand what I seek to convey.
 
 MZ: Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less 
 the
 motives of others when they write to myself.
 
 TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way.
 
 RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is 
 paying him for psychotherapyor a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not 
 making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or read) the motives of 
 others when they write to me; I am only saying

[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin

2011-10-19 Thread tartbrain

Ah yes, Sal you are always holding up the deep silent value of life. Bravo.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:57 PM, tartbrain wrote:
 
  Your comments, and I admit that I have not fully digested them,  provide 
  stimuli for more reflection and hopefully insight. If some strike me as 
  interesting discussion, perhaps we can extend the dialogue.
 
 Yes, tart~~that's a great idea.  You and Robin
 debate endlessly into the night, while the rest
 of us drift off into dreamland with this picture
 of you two dancing around in our heads, in place
 of the sugarplums.  So many KBs, so little
 time.
 
 Sal

[FairfieldLife] Kumbh Mela

2011-10-18 Thread tartbrain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUDPwzfdE78feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRp_Ealqu6w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9sTLavgqB8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVUX0OG9tF0feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=qF_CTs01sfY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw3bAbwmoB8feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hdL7bHAEmsfeature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCjrm1OMWCkfeature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Ln5yEp6M0feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYcMcY7sDl8feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DUcqmyb_s6Q4%26feature%3D
related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYcMcY7sDl8feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DUcqmyb_s6Q4%26feature%3Drelated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBzjcOu_mCAfeature=related

Kumbh Mela is the most sacred of all the pilgrimages. Thousands of holy men and
women attend, and the auspiciousness of the festival is in part attributable to
this

In the eight century, Shankara, a prominent Indian saint, popularized the
Kumbha Mela among the common people, and soon the attendance began to grow to
enormous proportions. Shankara placed special importance to the opportunity of
associating with saintly persons while at Kumbha Mela. Both hearing from sadhus
(holy men) and sacred bathing are still the two main focus at Kumbha Mela.

The major event of the festival is ritual bathing at the banks of the river in
whichever town it is being held. Nasik has registered maximum visitors amounted
nearly to 75 million. Other activities include religious discussions,
devotional singing, mass feeding of holy men and women and the poor, and
religious assemblies where doctrines are debated and standardized.

Wave after wave, they formed a veritable river of humanity that flowed onto the
banks of the Ganges at Allahabad to celebrate the greatest spiritual festival
ever held in the history of the world, the Kumbha Mela.

At the head of the procession were the nagas, India's famed naked holy men.
These holy men engage themselves in renunciation of the world in search of
equilibrium. They hope to escape the world's concomitant reactions and
suffering by their austere practices such as complete celibacy and
non-accumulation of material possessions. Thus they are known as
liberationists. With matted locks of hair, their bodies covered in ashes, and
their tridents ( the symbol of a follower of Shiva) raised high, they descended
upon the bathing area. Entering the water in a tumult, blowing conchshells and
singing Shiva ki jai, Ganga ki jai, they splashed the sacred waters upon
each other and played just like children. Indeed, they are said to be the very
children of the Ganges.

Next came the Vaisnava vairagis, the wandering mendicants who dedicate
everything to Visnu, the Sustainer. These saints live a life of service and
complete dedication.Then came the innumerable other sects of ascetics dressed
in saffron colored cloth and carrying their staffs of renunciation. All the
centuries gone by of India's spiritual evolution were simultaneously there
together in the procession. Each in turn bathed in the sangam.

Kumbha Mela has gained international fame as the world's most massive act of
faith. Pilgrims come to this holy event with such tremendous faith and in such
overwhelming numbers that it boggles the mind. Faith is the most important
thing for the pilgrims at Kumbha Mela, they have an unflinching trust in
something sublime.

To understand the significance of the Kumbha Mela and the important role that
it plays in the spirituality of India, it is helpful to know something about
the background of the sacred Ganges River. The devout believe that simply by
bathing in the Ganges one is freed from their past sins (karma), and thus one
becomes eligible for liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Of course it
is said that a pure lifestyle is also required after taking bath, otherwise one
will again be burdened by karmic reactions .The pilgrims come from all walks of
life, traveling long distances and tolerating many physical discomforts, such
as sleeping in the open air in near freezing weather. They undergo these
difficulties just to receive the benefit of taking a bath in the sacred river
at Kumbha Mela.

The ancient origin of the Kumbha Mela is described in the time honored Vedic
literatures of India as having evolved from bygone days of the universe when
the demigods and the demons produced the nectar of immortality.

This confluence of India's three most sacred rivers at Allahabad is called the
sangam. The combined sanctity of the three holy rivers, coupled with the
spiritual powers obtained from the pot of nectar of immortality, has earned
Allahabad the rank of tirtharaja, the king of holy places.

The main highlight for most pilgrims during a Kumbha Mela is the observance of
a

[FairfieldLife] Re: A History Lesson

2011-10-18 Thread tartbrain



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

 
 Rather than perpetuating fantasies posing as truth, try Nicholas
 Goodrick-Clark 's 

 Minor correction, its: Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke 

 The Occult Roots of Nazism. He is Professor of Western
 Esotericism and Director of the Exeter Centre for the Study of
 Esotericism (EXESESO), at the University of Exeter, U.K.
 
PDF of the book

http://knizky.mahdi.cz/75_Goodrick_Clarcke___The_Occult_Roots_of_Nazism.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: A History Lesson

2011-10-18 Thread tartbrain

He also wrote:

Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth and Neo-Nazism, 
...1998-2000 - ISBN 0-8147-3111-2 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

Unknown Sources: National Socialism and the Occult, co-authored with Hans 
Thomas Hakl - ISBN 1-55818-470-8 .

Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, ...2002 
- ISBN 0-8147-3155-4 .



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill emptybill@ wrote:
 
  
  Rather than perpetuating fantasies posing as truth, try Nicholas
  Goodrick-Clark 's 
 
  Minor correction, its: Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke 
 
  The Occult Roots of Nazism. He is Professor of Western
  Esotericism and Director of the Exeter Centre for the Study of
  Esotericism (EXESESO), at the University of Exeter, U.K.
  
 PDF of the book
 
 http://knizky.mahdi.cz/75_Goodrick_Clarcke___The_Occult_Roots_of_Nazism.pdf

[FairfieldLife] Re: MZ/RC - You don't know the references

2011-10-17 Thread tartbrain



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

 For my part, it is only because of Thomas Merton, Brother David
 Steindl-Rast, Fr. Basil Pennington and Abbott Thomas Keating that I even
 acknowledge that there is something still alive in Catholicism. 

If of value, here is a reading list from Father Kevin Joyce. Kevin was on my 
six-month course, a bright and shining guy, and at the end of the course, said 
he had decided to take his vows as a priest.(No one, or few, knew that he was 
pondering this during the course or that he was had been a priest in training.) 
I saw him a few year later at a wedding, and he seemed very happy with his path.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/our-lady-of-guadalupe-society-holy-family-parish/fr-kevin-joyce-recommended-reading-list/121943883660

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe, therefore you hate it...and us

2011-10-17 Thread tartbrain

(My response from yesterday does not seem to have gone through. )

Thanks. The book sounds fascinating. And what an imagination to have gotten a 
lot of 2010 era correct.


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

 You apparently never read Stand on Zanzabar back in 1969.
 As Bennie Noakes would say ... Christ what an imagination I've got.
 
 Tart:
 Perhaps N. would say its nothing of substance, just (imaginary) bubbles
 in
 Consciousness, a flicker of the mind, which itself is just a flicker.
 (flicker
 being a word one can easily misread if one is reading rapidly, and in
 that vein,
 it raises another way of looking at it, Its ALL just one huge Mind
 Fuck!
 
 \
 
 
 In Stand on Zanzabar -- John Brunner's great, sprawling,
 sprinting, lunatic of a novel written in 1968  the author foresees
 the world of 2010 as a place where
 http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandOnZanzibar :
 the  population of Earth has reached 7 billion. The Soviet Union
 is defunct  as a superpower, but China is rapidly industrializing and
 increasing in  power. Giant corporations have large enough economies to
 control entire  countries.
 
 In-vitro fertilization and genetic mapping are becoming a reality.
 
 A computer the size of a large book is more powerful than the most
 massive supercomputers of the Sixties.
 
 Personalized digital avatars of yourself feature in everyday
 entertainment.
 
 Religious denominations are rapidly polarizing on moral issues like
 abortion.
 
 And ordinary people suddenly snap and go on killing sprees in schools,
 workplaces, and malls.One  of the famous through lines of the
 multi-viewpoint novel is provided by  a stoner named Bennie Noakes, who
 spends most of his time wasted on a  drug called Triptine, randomly
 flipping through the 1000 channels  available on the tv and musing
 Christ, what an imagination I've got!because the sheer weirdness of
 what he is seeing is getting so dense that it has become impossible for
 him to believe it.
 
 The wham line  that ends the novel comes from
 Shalmaneser, the great supercomputer  which controls the media
 (think Google Cloud) and the economies of much of the planet.  And 
 which, having been forced to absorb endless petabytes of data about the 
 totality of the human condition
 SCANALYZER  is the one single, the ONLY study of the news in depth
 that's processed  by General Technics' famed computer Shalmaneser, who
 sees all, hears  all, knows all save only that which YOU, Mr, and Mrs.
 Everywhere, wish  to keep to yourselves.finally comes to this:
 Bathed in his currents of liquid helium, self-contained, immobile,
 vastly well informed by every electrical-mechanical sense: Shalmaneser.
 
 Every now and again there passes through his circuits a 010101 pulse
 which carries the cybernetic equivalent of the phrase, Christ, what an
 imagination I've got.
 
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@
 wrote:
  
   Thanks for the Nisargadatta quote, Tartbrain. I'm not the
 hero-worshipped I once was, but Nisargadatta still gets my attention.
 
  I have read little of him, but picked up and read some of I AM THAT
 yesterday. I like him. He explained much better the point that I was
 getting at in my Cafe post of yesterday.
 
  
   And in that regards the question still remains who or what is
 attention?
 
  Perhaps N. would say its nothing of substance, just (imaginary)
 bubbles in Consciousness, a flicker of the mind, which itself is just a
 flicker. (flicker being a word one can easily misread if one is reading
 rapidly, and in that vein, it raises another way of looking at it, Its
 ALL just one huge Mind Fuck!

[FairfieldLife] Anandamayi Ma Pictures and Videos

2011-10-17 Thread tartbrain

For those whom may enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU5p1AzLAU4feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7oKmd8oLQfeature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWv4ktbb33Ufeature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M95GXK5VRa4feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFnj_sml99Mfeature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe, therefore you hate it...and us



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  It's just part and parcel of a mental path: mental causes create mental 
  effects. Given what we know about neuroplasticity today, I'd have to 
  respond: you would have to either change your mind long enough for your 
  cortex to re-weave new connections -or- you'd have to so foundationally 
  shift your consciousness so as to effectively alter your way of thinking 
  and seeing the world. Otherwise you're trapped within the neural hardware 
  of the imprisoning cortex that you yourself had volitionally woven.
 
 
 
 That felt like scripture to me on this Sunday morning Vaj, thanks!  I am knee 
 deep in to a book about neuroplasticity  and it has really forced me to 
 rethink my life's habits.  
 

Which book?


 
 
 
 
  
  On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Tom Pall wrote:
  
   Vaj, this is a terrible thing to say about TMers.  One could draw the 
   conclusion from what you write that RC and Ravi are off the wall and 
   motormouths because they're at the very least psychologically warped and 
   delusional.   That of course can't be.   RC just runs off at the mouth 
   and takes us on an incredible journey through every nook and cranny of 
   his mind in every post because, well, things are complicated, right?
  
  Well I only read some of RC's posts and none of Ravi's, so I'm probably the 
  wrong person to ask! (and of course incomplete causal paths that are mental 
  in nature are not unique to TM/TMSP). Although in RC's case, from what I 
  gather he had the maturity to see through some of the TM world-dream, but 
  perhaps may have replaced it with another. After all, at least TM had a 
  strongly ingrained belief that it was scientific. I doubt we could say the 
  same for transubstantiation or grace.
  
   And it's expected as part of the path forward that you'll spend some 
   months in a mental (behavioral science?) ward because, well, it /is/ just 
   part of the checking notes I didn't seem to receive, right? 
  
  It's just part and parcel of a mental path: mental causes create mental 
  effects. Given what we know about neuroplasticity today, I'd have to 
  respond: you would have to either change your mind long enough for your 
  cortex to re-weave new connections -or- you'd have to so foundationally 
  shift your consciousness so as to effectively alter your way of thinking 
  and seeing the world. Otherwise you're trapped within the neural hardware 
  of the imprisoning cortex that you yourself had volitionally woven.

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe, therefore you hate it...and us



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  What fires together, wires together is one of my favorite sutras.
 
 Fantastic!  The educational implications are vast.
 


Perhaps too far of point, but there is a quirky film I recently saw, Limitless. 
A pill gives people their full mental potential, but of course wears off and 
the takers need a constant supply. Until the end, the protagonist reveals he no 
longer needs the supply, the experience has rewired things such that it is now 
permanent.

Parallels to what we put our attention on grows strong in our life. 
Attention, I speculate, enables or encourages new connections, rewiring. 
Similar to fires together (attention) wires together.

Also helps explain imaging and affirmations. Our mental image rewires things 
and enables (the  same as causal) an outer manifestation of the inner image.

Does rewiring bleed down to the genetic level -- that is passing on the 
rewiring to future gens? Interesting implications. 

Have you read Buddha's Brain? or On Intelligence? 

A quote I came across from Nisargadatta last night. 

But in fact all experience is in the mind, and even his coming to me and 
getting help is all within himself, he imagines an answer from without.  To me 
there is no me, no man and no giving. All of this is merely a flicker in the 
mind. I am infinite peace and silence in which nothing appears, for all that 
appears  disappears. Nobody comes for help, nobody offers help, nobody gets 
help, it is all but a display in consciousness.

The pure mind sees things as they are  bubbles in consciousness. These bubbles 
are appearing, disappearing and reappearing   without having real being. No 
particular cause can be ascribed to them, fore each is caused by all and 
affects all. Each bubble is a body and all these bodies are mine.

Mind is influenced, if not shaped by, those neural pathways that are fired up, 
connected. Helps explains, or at least opens the door of plausibility of how 
mind can shape what is out there (quantum soup idea) in one way (for the vast 
majority) and in radically different in others (Nisragadatta's view). 

Off on a tangent of this, brings to me the question, to what extent do 
transmissions, shatipat, darshan, etc also change neural pathways and ways of 
firing?  
 
One poster some time ago made a curious statement (to me). That he just threw 
it all away -- all the descriptions of others, and his own expectations, of 
enlightenment, and simply defined the state that he wanted to attain. Imagined 
it, focused on it deeply (is my understanding of his process) and he, his 
experience, became that.  While writing that off at the time, to some extent, 
as wish fulfillment, it does fit within the model of neural-plasticity (which 
is far from saying that is what it is.) 

 
 
 
 
  
  On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:49 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
   
It's just part and parcel of a mental path: mental causes create mental 
effects. Given what we know about neuroplasticity today, I'd have to 
respond: you would have to either change your mind long enough for your 
cortex to re-weave new connections -or- you'd have to so foundationally 
shift your consciousness so as to effectively alter your way of 
thinking and seeing the world. Otherwise you're trapped within the 
neural hardware of the imprisoning cortex that you yourself had 
volitionally woven.
   
   
   That felt like scripture to me on this Sunday morning Vaj, thanks! I am 
   knee deep in to a book about neuroplasticity and it has really forced me 
   to rethink my life's habits. 
  
  What fires together, wires together is one of my favorite sutras.

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe, therefore you hate it...and us



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@... wrote:

 Thanks for the Nisargadatta quote, Tartbrain. I'm not the hero-worshipped I 
 once was, but Nisargadatta still gets my attention. 

I have read little of him, but picked up and read some of I AM THAT yesterday. 
I like him. He explained much better the point that I was getting at in my 
Cafe post of yesterday.

 
 And in that regards the question still remains who or what is attention?

Perhaps N. would say its nothing of substance, just (imaginary) bubbles in 
Consciousness, a flicker of the mind, which itself is just a flicker. (flicker 
being a word one can easily misread if one is reading rapidly, and in that 
vein, it raises another way of looking at it, Its ALL just one huge Mind 
Fuck!  

Jan Esmann, a Batgap interview that I just heard and recommend, might say that 
its intense Love. 
http://batgap.com/jan-esmann/#comments

I might say its that thing that keep randomly, wandering, usually off point.


 
 Like what you wrote, thanks for that.

Nice to have you back.

 
 Marek
 
 ***
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
What fires together, wires together is one of my favorite sutras.
   
   Fantastic!  The educational implications are vast.
   
  
  
  Perhaps too far of point, but there is a quirky film I recently saw, 
  Limitless. A pill gives people their full mental potential, but of course 
  wears off and the takers need a constant supply. Until the end, the 
  protagonist reveals he no longer needs the supply, the experience has 
  rewired things such that it is now permanent.
  
  Parallels to what we put our attention on grows strong in our life. 
  Attention, I speculate, enables or encourages new connections, rewiring. 
  Similar to fires together (attention) wires together.
  
  Also helps explain imaging and affirmations. Our mental image rewires 
  things and enables (the  same as causal) an outer manifestation of the 
  inner image.
  
  Does rewiring bleed down to the genetic level -- that is passing on the 
  rewiring to future gens? Interesting implications. 
  
  Have you read Buddha's Brain? or On Intelligence? 
  
  A quote I came across from Nisargadatta last night. 
  
  But in fact all experience is in the mind, and even his coming to me and 
  getting help is all within himself, he imagines an answer from without.  To 
  me there is no me, no man and no giving. All of this is merely a flicker in 
  the mind. I am infinite peace and silence in which nothing appears, for all 
  that appears  disappears. Nobody comes for help, nobody offers help, 
  nobody gets help, it is all but a display in consciousness.
  
  The pure mind sees things as they are  bubbles in consciousness. These 
  bubbles are appearing, disappearing and reappearing   without having real 
  being. No particular cause can be ascribed to them, fore each is caused by 
  all and affects all. Each bubble is a body and all these bodies are mine.
  
  Mind is influenced, if not shaped by, those neural pathways that are fired 
  up, connected. Helps explains, or at least opens the door of plausibility 
  of how mind can shape what is out there (quantum soup idea) in one way (for 
  the vast majority) and in radically different in others (Nisragadatta's 
  view). 
  
  Off on a tangent of this, brings to me the question, to what extent do 
  transmissions, shatipat, darshan, etc also change neural pathways and ways 
  of firing?  
   
  One poster some time ago made a curious statement (to me). That he just 
  threw it all away -- all the descriptions of others, and his own 
  expectations, of enlightenment, and simply defined the state that he wanted 
  to attain. Imagined it, focused on it deeply (is my understanding of his 
  process) and he, his experience, became that.  While writing that off at 
  the time, to some extent, as wish fulfillment, it does fit within the model 
  of neural-plasticity (which is far from saying that is what it is.) 
  
   
   
   
   

On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:49 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
  It's just part and parcel of a mental path: mental causes create 
  mental effects. Given what we know about neuroplasticity today, I'd 
  have to respond: you would have to either change your mind long 
  enough for your cortex to re-weave new connections -or- you'd have 
  to so foundationally shift your consciousness so as to effectively 
  alter your way of thinking and seeing the world. Otherwise you're 
  trapped within the neural hardware of the imprisoning cortex that 
  you yourself had volitionally woven.
 
 
 That felt like scripture to me on this Sunday morning Vaj, thanks! I 
 am

[FairfieldLife] Attention is Consciousness (was you don't believe what we believe ..)

 in the original reply but 
 auto-correct changed it for me to hero-worshipped.

No problem, I got your meaning.

 However, no heroes have ever worshipped me.)
 

You never know. N. is consciousness. Consciousness probably has intense love 
for you, as consciousness (and maybe even the surfer lawyer you). 

 ***

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, marekreavis reavismarek@ wrote:
  
   Thanks for the Nisargadatta quote, Tartbrain. I'm not the hero-worshipped 
   I once was, but Nisargadatta still gets my attention. 
  
  I have read little of him, but picked up and read some of I AM THAT 
  yesterday. I like him. He explained much better the point that I was 
  getting at in my Cafe post of yesterday.
  
   
   And in that regards the question still remains who or what is 
   attention?
  
  Perhaps N. would say its nothing of substance, just (imaginary) bubbles in 
  Consciousness, a flicker of the mind, which itself is just a flicker. 
  (flicker being a word one can easily misread if one is reading rapidly, and 
  in that vein, it raises another way of looking at it, Its ALL just one 
  huge Mind Fuck!  
  
  Jan Esmann, a Batgap interview that I just heard and recommend, might say 
  that its intense Love. 
  http://batgap.com/jan-esmann/#comments
  
  I might say its that thing that keep randomly, wandering, usually off point.
  
  
   
   Like what you wrote, thanks for that.
  
  Nice to have you back.
  
   
   Marek
   
   ***
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
   


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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
  What fires together, wires together is one of my favorite sutras.
 
 Fantastic!  The educational implications are vast.
 


Perhaps too far of point, but there is a quirky film I recently saw, 
Limitless. A pill gives people their full mental potential, but of 
course wears off and the takers need a constant supply. Until the end, 
the protagonist reveals he no longer needs the supply, the experience 
has rewired things such that it is now permanent.

Parallels to what we put our attention on grows strong in our life. 
Attention, I speculate, enables or encourages new connections, 
rewiring. Similar to fires together (attention) wires together.

Also helps explain imaging and affirmations. Our mental image rewires 
things and enables (the  same as causal) an outer manifestation of the 
inner image.

Does rewiring bleed down to the genetic level -- that is passing on the 
rewiring to future gens? Interesting implications. 

Have you read Buddha's Brain? or On Intelligence? 

A quote I came across from Nisargadatta last night. 

But in fact all experience is in the mind, and even his coming to me 
and getting help is all within himself, he imagines an answer from 
without.  To me there is no me, no man and no giving. All of this is 
merely a flicker in the mind. I am infinite peace and silence in which 
nothing appears, for all that appears  disappears. Nobody comes for 
help, nobody offers help, nobody gets help, it is all but a display in 
consciousness.

The pure mind sees things as they are  bubbles in consciousness. These 
bubbles are appearing, disappearing and reappearing   without having 
real being. No particular cause can be ascribed to them, fore each is 
caused by all and affects all. Each bubble is a body and all these 
bodies are mine.

Mind is influenced, if not shaped by, those neural pathways that are 
fired up, connected. Helps explains, or at least opens the door of 
plausibility of how mind can shape what is out there (quantum soup 
idea) in one way (for the vast majority) and in radically different in 
others (Nisragadatta's view). 

Off on a tangent of this, brings to me the question, to what extent do 
transmissions, shatipat, darshan, etc also change neural pathways and 
ways of firing?  
 
One poster some time ago made a curious statement (to me). That he just 
threw it all away -- all the descriptions of others, and his own 
expectations, of enlightenment, and simply defined the state that he 
wanted to attain. Imagined it, focused on it deeply (is my 
understanding of his process) and he, his experience, became that.  
While writing that off at the time, to some extent, as wish 
fulfillment, it does fit within the model of neural-plasticity (which 
is far from saying that is what it is.) 

 
 
 
 
  
  On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:49 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
   
It's just part and parcel

[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie review: Cafe

2011-10-15 Thread tartbrain



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

 This is an Indie flick that I watched entirely because of its name. I
 sit and write in cafes, and so I figured it would appeal to me. It's a
 writer/director's first effort, set entirely in a cafe in Philadelphia,
 and stars Jennifer Love Hewitt and a bunch of lesser-known supporting
 actors.
 
 I expected it to be quirky, and it was. What I didn't expect was for it
 to be quite as quirky as it is. The tagline for the film is What if the
 world you lived in weren't real? and that's basically what the film is
 about. The cafe's regulars go about their everyday lives and their
 everyday petty dramas, every day, as do we all, but one day on the
 laptop of one of the regulars there appears the face of a young girl
 telling him that he doesn't really exist. He's just an avatar, living in
 a virtual world that she has created, just for the fun of creating it.

The young girl is a nice analogy for the mind. The mind creates our (view of 
the) world in the sense that it projects onto what is out there, all of its 
stuff, accumulated for how so ever long, creating what we think is substantive 
(snake vs rope). Can one prove that its not just quantum soup out there that 
our minds mold into our trip? 

And other minds being similarly conditioned create the similar illusion. And 
different minds, for example a dog's, creates a far different world than what 
we see -- though there is still a lot of commonality. A whale's mind 
undoubtedly creates quite a different world for itself compared to humans and 
dogs, thought there is some, though less commonality. A being with eyes similar 
to an electron microscope will create a radically different world from the 
quantum soup than any of the forementioned as would a being with senses beyond 
our five. We have such a human-centric view that we have an accurate view of 
what is out there, that we are seeing the real thing through our little small 
slice of senses and mind processing/projections. We don't even get the sun 
rising thing right, at a gut level.   

A more interesting question, for me, is whether the girl (the mind) itself 
substantively exists. Or has the mind simply created itself, and our sense of 
the world, as self-contained virtual fluctuation within itself. The distinction 
is roughly the difference between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical 
solipsism, as I understand the terms. The former being that (I can only be sure 
that) my mind exists. The latter being a realization that even the mind is not 
substantive. And that which is substantive is outside the mind and its 
creations, the space within which all of these mental fluctuations exist, 
which in essence is the advaitic view. 

 


 Naturally, he doesn't quite believe this, but then events start
 happening in the cafe that cause him *to* believe it.
 
 As such, this is a little movie that might appeal to many here, who tend
 to believe the same thing about reality, and their own lives. If you
 believe that someone or something else is writing the script of your
 life, and that you are little more than a bit player in someone or
 something else's drama (or comedy), this movie's for you. It's not
 great, and not nearly in the same league of cafe-based stories as
 Amelie, but it's entertaining, in a lightweight, fluffy sort of way.
 
 If you wind up seeing it, come back and tell me what you think the guy
 who sits in the corner every day writing in his notebook (seen briefly
 at 0:48 in the trailer below) was really writing. I think it was the
 script for this film.
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0t1VQ3PAOM
 %20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0t1VQ3PAOM

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe, therefore you hate it...and us

2011-10-15 Thread tartbrain



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can see the 
 possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the angles and 
 other celestial being around them. However there is no salvation outside of 
 you, so this is all optional entertainment really.
 
 Perhaps at first the experience would be unsettling, however the experience 
 of the celestial worlds is sufficiently subtle to be only perceived when 
 there is not any sort of excitement or expectation in the mind.

Or the celestial world could simply be an intricate projection of the subtle 
functioning of the mind. Outside of the mind and the worlds that it creates is 
substantive reality.

 So it becomes a normal extension of the senses that is rarely used or thought 
 about. Only useful if needed, not entertainment ever.:-)
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote:
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@
  wrote:
  
   Hey there nit-wit, you are beginning to sound like Ravi pimp
  whore Yogi. Â
  
  Err..Denise, pardon me, but that would be Ravi The Lover Yogi and no
  nitwit can sound like the narcissistic, manic depressive, low vibe,
  slimeball enlightened asshole like me.
  I don't see Angels, nor I do believe in them - but certainly can see the
  possibility that a certain refined nervous system can see the angles and
  other celestial being around them. However there is no salvation outside
  of you, so this is all optional entertainment really.
  
   I have a few questions for you about angels, as I am seeing someone
  who is healing my spiritual grid and the angels are helping, according
  to her. Â I'm one of those unfortunate ones who can't see anything
  in this lifetime. Â Maybe next time 'round. Â  Are angels
  unconditional and is there salvation for us sinners? Â I'm assuming
  the answer is yes, but having also been told I'm a perpetrator in
  this life, I worry about condemnation...although less and less.
  
  
   
   From: whynotnow7 whynotnow7@
   To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:01 AM
   Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: You don't believe what we believe,
  therefore you hate it...and us
  
  
   Â
   You just proved my point. Now, run along kiddie and play in your
  selective memory some more. I won't push your buttons anymore, though
  you are challenged to find mine. And while we're at it, even though you
  make a big pretense of not reading my posts, you eat up every word with
  a spoon don't you? To the point of trying to borrow the ideas I express.
  I didn't use to call you Bozotronic Barry for nothing, you nit-wit.
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@
  wrote:

 The states of mind you describe below are almost as retarded
 as yours, If you are self-realized, you think you are better
 than me.
   
Ahem. This is too good a setup to pass up. Might I cite
a quotation from the same self-announced self realized
person who wrote the above, posted *by him* less than
24 hours ago:
   
The angels, gods and saints I have directed [sic]
interacted with are a lot more real than either of
you, but please, continue with your fantasy! A dull
nervous system doesn't have the ability of refined
perception and so cannot see the lifeforms all
around us. Maybe next life? and believe me I am
being generous with you two nit-wits.
   
No thinking I'm better than others there, nope. :-)
   
The fascinating thing is that Jimbo really doesn't
*remember* being as arrogant and elitist and as
condescending as he was less than a day ago when
he wrote this. In his case, being in the now
seems to mean I can't remember what *I* said
yesterday.
   
Jim, you *DO* think that you're better than us.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tales
you do has, *according to you*, a dull nervous
system, and is a nit-wit.
   
I don't think that you can find a single person
on this forum who doesn't believe this about you.
It comes through in almost every post you write.
How we were always able to tell it was you back
when you were pretending to be someone else?
   
Why is it that you are unable to see what is so
apparent to everyone else? Is being that totally
self-unaware a part of being what you call self-
realization? If so, why do you believe that anyone
would want to achieve it?
   
Now prove how unattached to your own fictional
stories and the image you try to project of being
enlightened (and thus unattached and above get-
ting your buttons pushed) by responding to this
post and any others I make this week with a series
of putdowns. That is your normal pattern on this

[FairfieldLife] Re: Greetings from Occupied Wall Street

2011-10-06 Thread tartbrain



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

 Keep in mind as you complain about how horrible and difficult your life is, a 
 garbage man or a pizza delivery man in today's world lives a more luxurious 
 life with more entertainment than the King of England or the Emporor of Japan 
 did 100 years ago.  Our quality of life here in America is better than any 
 civilization in the history of the world.  


100 years? Think 10. I recently thought of my history with Netfix  (the DVD 
part, so old skewl now  though for me still the main game in town due to its 
Long Tail massive diversity of obscure films)  12 years of red envelopes. I 
watched (non-blue ray, oh the horror) DVDs on my 27 Sony XBR TV a bargain at 
$1200  its picture quality so good I thought.  Or sometimes I would watch on 
my PC, some single core processor running at dismal (but them seemingly 
blazing) speeds, on Windows -2000 (ah! no more bluescreens of death how 
naïve). RAM was getting so cheap, was it a glorious 16 MB that I had, I forget, 
or was that still the 4 MB era?  My monitor, one of the largest available, was 
so heavy it took two to move around in all of its CRT glory at what would pass 
now for caveman resolutions. Cable had an amazing 50 channels or so. Some 
pretty grainy, but still! I did have one of the earlier cable modems, was it 
200 kbps? Maybe if the neighbors were not sucking up the capacity of the local 
hub.  We had come so far since those 300 baud modem days of a few years prior. 
Man, was I wired!  Little realized what bondage such tethering held relative to 
the wireless world of HD streaming mobile devices. Really, would you go back 
and live in those brutish, archaic times?

Up to 1900 or so, your 100 years ago, knowledge was doubling every century  
blazing compared to the long history of humankind. Future Shock, the Toffler 
best seller when I was back in school for the summer after my TTC in 1971  
heralded the being shot out of a cannon speed of change, knowledge doubling 
every 20 years or so. Um, I still did not own a 4 function calculator  those 
god like devices that some career surging acquaintances had recently scored. 
Dean Brown at Humboldt the summer before had talked about his work at SRI and 
this pipedream sci fi fantasy about a book of knowledge the size of a large 
paperback, that would contain all of the knowledge of the world. Well, that was 
clearly crazy, but huge new vistas were emerging, like the Whole Earth catalog 
, I mean like it was almost infinite in the new and cool stuff it revealed.  

Today the knowledge doubling rate is every 2 years.  Not the static Moore's 
law exponential growth of PCs, doubling in power at half the cost every 18 
months, but the rate of knowledge doubling itself was accelerating.  In ten 
years, what, doubling every two months? What happens when it doubles every day? 
And what is the half-life of knowledge then? How fast does knowledge then 
become obsolete? Knowledge becoming obsolete far faster than we can learn it.

Various glimpses of royalty (from your 100 years ago comparison) through the 
ages from the likes of Camelot (Eva Green one), Robin Hood (Russell Crowe one) 
[which begs the question of when will Eva Green and Russell Crowe be royal 
together in some epic and spawn wonder kinder) and the Tudors (though far from 
historically accurate, the sets and costumes at least appear to be well 
researched, gotta love those early tennis matches.) Pretty drab existence. I 
mean I love wood fires, but as the only source of warmth in a cold winter, in 
those large drafty castles?  Working by candlelight, writing letters by hand, 
dispatched to your courier for rapid delivery some weeks hence. But the sex 
seemed good then as always  well, from afar. Those acne scarred  half toothed 
babes in their mid 20's (modern dentistry, though has its merits.) 

But that pastoral life, the citizenry of farmers, abundant fresh organic food, 
fresh air, clean water, unspoiled vistas, nights not spoiled with 100 channel 
blathering, time to read and ponder.  Was that really a life of impoverishment?

Amidst all this talk of comparative material sparseness, I did have thoughts 
similar to Turq's, 

If part of you is seeking something other than
what the current moment and your current state
of attention presents to you, that really is
the opposite of liberation. Liberation is
having gotten over the seeking thang.

There is a delicious paradox there. Can one not seek technological wonders, but 
still joyfully dance with those wonders? And the reverse side of seeking is 
having gotten over the loss thang. Who among us would gladly abandon the last 
20 years of progress (um, man, that means no internet)  -- fully content with 
a  current moment of technological backwater years. 

And if 20 years ago was like a wonderland compared to 20 years earlier (when 
Toffler was saying we were being shot out of a cannon) how will we view

[FairfieldLife] Re: Steve Jobs RIP

2011-10-06 Thread tartbrain

A nice illustration of the equivalence of attention. Wealth, power, fame, 
connections and all are all limited by attention. We are attentive to that 
which has the greatest value to us at the moment (well, given, and within the 
context of, the complex chain and logic of deferred gratification.) 

Steve and you each similtaneously concluded that attention on Avatar was of the 
highest order for those two hours. Steve, with all of his wealth, fame, power, 
connections, cool business, enablers, and all, placed his attention on 
something more, the most for him at that moment. The same object of attention 
that you chose. Brothers of equal wealth.


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

 After the movie Avatar had been released for about a week or so, I decided to 
 cut out of work early and watch it at a local IMAX theater. The theater is 
 located in a failing shopping mall in Cupertino, and the thought is that the 
 theater is going to help revive it. The theater is well attended - the 
 stores..not so much.
 
 After the movie was over, I headed back to my secret parking spot, through a 
 part of the mall that has very little foot traffic. In that area is a nice 
 atrium filled with Ficus trees and showered with ample sunshine through it's 
 large windows and skylights.
 
 On my way to the atrium, I happened to be following a middle-aged guy wearing 
 a black turtleneck sweater. He stood there for a bit as I approached the 
 area, and then our eyes met. It was Steve Jobs. 
 
 I nodded, he nodded back, and I went on my way. Somehow, knowing that we had 
 both cut out of work in the middle of the day to see a movie made him seem 
 very human, very normal and relatable.

[FairfieldLife] Re: course presentation, Ladies Magic Flyers in the Dome

2011-10-06 Thread tartbrain



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@... wrote:

 From: Dome Announcements owner-dome-l@...
 
 Lady Yogic Flyers

Glancing out of the corner of my eye, I for a split second thought it said 
Lady Magic Flyers. 

I think I heard that lecture.

The last three letters are the same. The only difference is YO and MA. So it 
is clear, and this is so beautiful, the bounded tubular like sound of YO 
becomes the unboundedness of MA when the finite point value becomes the 
infinite unboundedness of the unified field. 

YO becomes M. Finite becomes infinite. Yogic becomes 
Magic, the filed of all possibilities. Its is so beautiful. As Y 
expands it becomes YOO  YOOO or YO-YO. YO-YO becomes MA 
and when this occurs the infinite celestial sounds underlying all of creation 
arise -- it sounds like a cello. Like God is playing the cello. YO-YO becomes 
MA. It is so beautiful. Celestial cello.

And just as we have this 2:1 relationship YO becomes YO-YO becoming MA there is 
the inverse, perfect symmetry due to the infinite correlation of the unified 
field. A 1:2 relation comes out of 2:1. One becomes two and then arcs back into 
itself, infinite Self referral, as 2 becomes 1. YO-YO MA becomes YO MAMA. Yogic 
becomes Magic. Technique becomes Mystical. It is so Beautiful. 

How many have experienced this, Yogic become Magic as YO-YO MA becomes YO MAMA. 
See, almost everyone. Who heard those celestial cellos? Oh, very good, very 
good. 

There is an ancient story in sanskrit, its an aphorism, a sutra. The infinite 
value of all knowledge in one small sequence of words. In the words and in the 
Gap between words. In the space between words. Finite surrounded by infinite, 
words surrounded by space. YO-YO MA becomes YO MAMA. Yogic becomes Magic. In 
this particular sutra the adept, this saint, this realized being, firmly 
established in the infinite Unified Field says to his student, Yo MaMa is so 
fat that she walked into the Gap and filled it. 

See the point? YO-YO MA becomes YO MAMA. And YO MAMA is the Gap, that infinity 
between each word in the YO MAMA sutra. You see? It is so beautiful. So YO MAMA 
is Yogic that has become Magic. 

Through this a great tradition was born, the infinite wisdom passed down from 
generation to generation. So the YO MAMA sutra expanded into the YO MAMA 
tradition. It became, as we know them today, the YO MAMA Magic Flyers. The YO 
MAMA Magic Flyers are so Big, they fill the GAP. They fill the entire Dome. 
They don't bounce on the mat, the mat bounces off of them. 

This is what happens when Yogic becomes Magic. It is so beautiful. Ripples and 
ripples of infinity rippling through the YO MAMA Magic Flyers. Yogic becomes 
Magic as YO-YO MA becomes YO MAMA and fills the entire Gap, the entire Dome, 
with rippling bliss.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius
  anartaxius@ wrote:
  
   A selfish act seems to imply will.
  
  The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of
  enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will.
  
   If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief
   true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no
   sense. 

As Wayback points out well below, I will take a similar whack at it, one acts 
according to their nature.  A selfish person will generally act selfish. They 
can only not act selfish/dickish unless the thought occurs to them (possibly 
from feedback from others) to act in nondickish ways. When then, ones mental 
nature will determine if one pursues that insight. They have no free-will to 
not act dickish until they learn through experience, reasoning, intuition, life 
feedback that their are alternatives. And over time the DP finds more 
fulfilling ways of living than pure dickhood. One acts according to their 
nature. And part of our natures is to explore, learn, find ways and things that 
appear to bring greater happiness, clarity and good times. A DP cann't help but 
be dickish, but also can't help evaluating the feedback he gets -- even if its 
subconscious. 

Generally, you have no free will not to enjoy greater happiness. There is no 
choice. One only goes for the number three door if they feel it will increase 
their overall happiness and fulfillment. Values play a big role in determining 
what we think / feel will bring us greater happiness -- why we choose the 
number three door and not number one. A masochist has a value framework such 
that inflicting pain on oneself is seen to be a field of greater happiness.  


 

And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise
   it, having a subjective experience one did not will to
   describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not
   be a selfish act.
  
  Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get
  off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some
  of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-)
 
There are (at least) two dimensions to this. You focus on only one. On can only 
act according to their nature. That is not being scot-free. There are 
consequences to our actions. Life provides abundant feedback. It is also our 
nature to learn, adapt, seek even better ways to be happy. So the selfish have 
no option in the short-run to be dickish. Longer run, as life feedback and 
internal processing of that occurs, more pathways arise. One will flow towards 
the path of least resistance towards perceived greater happiness. 


   Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems
   to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before.
   He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and
   his flip flops are an expression of that choice.
  
  If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non-
  freewillers think is running things is not really as
  consistent as they think he/she/it is. 

Again, you are missing the no-free will boat. (And you had no choice but to do 
so, you perhaps gain happiness by missing boats -- or appearing to do so. 
Enjoyment may be towards seeing peoples reactions to your missing boats -- who 
knows.) Acting according to ones nature, acting towards greater happiness, 
responding to life feedback does not premise or posit or require some he/she 
running us like puppets.  

 Try to imagine
  the consternation of those who don't much like the
  things I write but philosophically believe that God
  is really writing it all. They must think that God is
  a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-)
 
 Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road 
 before.  Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it 
 feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony.  

Precisely.

I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and free 
willish are mostly  automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain 
structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our 
awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny 
automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the 
decision.  

So much goes on below the surface. Who understands and wills their cells to 
replicate in specific ways, their heart to beat, cells to form high functioning 
organs, neurons to create vast networks, the response to neurotransmitters, 
etc? We are the very tiny tip of the tail of the dog, yet we feel (strongly) we 
are wagging the dog. 


God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most no free 
willers here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us..  
 

Correct. To think so would seem silly.


 Given your posts,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed too 
 that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, 

You don't appear to desire very much globally and socially.

That aside, some observations, and questions, asking more generally (to 
everyone): do you feel that these are your desires? (And that does not imply 
someone else, a higher being or nature perhaps, is desiring it.) That is, was 
it  consciously  created by you?  

Parallel to free will the appearance of our choosing this or that may appear 
to be so, but that does not make it so. Same thing with desire. A glob of 
energy is our there, we can claim it as ours or not. Similar to our 
choosing to do something. Tons of processing, by itself going on below the 
surface, and then (it appears) WE desire something. Is that really volitional 
creating? 

And parallel to thoughts. Did you notice how effortlessly desires came? If 
so, how are they your desires?

Back the the  free will thread, the experience in checking is insightful. Did 
you notice how effortlessly the decision and choice to do this vs that came? 
If it came effortlessly, where is the free will? 

(One might answer that they consciously engage the intellect -- and work hard 
on deciding what to freely do. However, first, are you your intellect? And 
second, Did you notice how effortlessly the intellect does its thing? Can you 
stop the intellect from weighing this and that, evaluating things?)

[FairfieldLife] Summa Five Attributes

I didn't read all of the Summa thread, so apologies if this is repetitious. The 
thread did prompt me to read some on Aquinas. I like his 5 divine qualities -- 
derived by a neti neti process. It is not a proof of God, hardly so. However, 
it is a nice standard to continue a neti neti type process: 

Is X   

1) simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and 
form?

2) perfect, lacking nothing. That is, is X is distinguished from other beings 
on account of X's complete actuality, the `Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens,' 
subsisting act of being?

3) infinite? That is, is X is not finite in the ways that created beings are 
physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be 
distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number?

4) immutable, incapable of change on the levels of its essence and character?

5) One, without diversification within itself. (Is the unity of X is such that 
X's essence is the same as X's existence.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Hi, responses below:
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have noticed 
   too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, 
  
  You don't appear to desire very much globally and socially.
 
 I don't get your question. Here are some of my own to clarify. What social, 
 global utopia am I supposed to deeply desire according to you? 
  
 snip


You stated that you have your own desires. So I was simply asking, does it 
stop there? Do you have desires for the welfare and happiness of anything or 
anyone else beyond yourself? If so, do you lack in imagination? (I only ask if 
since your desires were not always fulfilled.)

Do you not like living here on the planet Earth *as it is*? 

Do you like Jim as he is? Then why do you personally desire for anything more? 
That is, your premise appears to be that the world is perfect, therefore no 
desires for expansion, refinement are possible or even a good thing. However, 
it would seem that since Jim desires things for Jim, it might imply that Jim is 
not satisfied with Jim as he is. 

  What is it externally that bothers you so much that it interferes with the 
 fulfillment of your deepest desires?

Kind of like have you stopped beating your wife? I suppose. A large amount of 
assumption and presumption behind your question -- a wonderous heap not so 
conducive to true discussion.

But I will give it a try. First, Desiring for the extended and expanded 
happiness of the people of the world does not mean that one is deeply bothered. 
I am sort of surprised that you feel that compassion, good will, desire for the 
welfare of the world comes from some internal flaw or darkeness (That is my 
understanding of your worlds bothered so much. If I have misunderstood and 
you feel that bothered so much comes from light love and laughter, then 
please by all means correct my misunderstanding.) 

Second, why would desires for the common good, for progress, for more universal 
education and understanding, for a more balanced environment, for more 
nutrituous foods available everywhere, for deeper appreciation of world 
cultures, be in anyway an obstacle to my deepest desires?

Third, is it possible in your mind that the wider expansion of joy, the 
fruition of the common good, the forging of deeper and wider global networks of 
understanding and love are my deepest desires?

Fourth, does the expansion and refinement of consciousness everywhere, 
individual and collective repulse and and sicken you? If not, why is it 
spiritually shameful (as your words appear to imply) to desire for such to 
unfold?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling


RG: Yes; I have found that fulfillment of desires occurs as I don't
wholeheartedly
identify with them, but just pay simple, unconditionally loving
attention to
them -- i.e., accepting them as they truly are, as divine
seeds-of-growth,

TB: Your post appear to provide  some insight to my query from my
somewhat adjacent post:

 do you feel that these are your desires? (And that does not imply
someone else, a higher being or nature perhaps, is desiring it.) That
is, was it consciously created by you?    Parallel to free will
the appearance of our choosing this or that may appear to be so, but
that does not make it so. Same thing with desire. A glob of energy is
out there, we can claim it as ours or not. Similar to our choosing
to do something. Tons of processing, by itself going on below the
surface, and then (it appears) WE desire something. Is that really
volitional creating?  And parallel to thoughts. Did you notice how
effortlessly desires came? If so, how are they your desires?

TB: That is, desires are often cast as personal, self-created,
volitional and binding. They may appear to be  such, but another take on
them is they are simply the result of much internal, subsconscious
processing of our interaction with the world.  A thought about  which
ought to be done appears and one generally moves in that direction. That
is that glob of energy appears, it is formed and grows below the surface
 just as millions of cells are created each day and go about their
wonderous business of becoming body  parts.  The new revitalized body
parts just appear. All without any conscious intervention or volition on
our part.

A mistake appears to be to claim it as mine, my desire.
It's just something that ought to be done  that
appears out of nowhere.  And the things that ought to be done
may have nothing to do with oneself.

(Ought is frought with possible connotations outside my
intent.  More it's an invitation. You are invited to
participate in something awesome and cool. Not ought as
in some mandate.  More it's an inviting opportunity.  )

  Often the things that ought to be done, inviting opportunities, have
little to do with one self.  Or ones individual desires may be
towards more global less-personal visions.  One gets enjoyment from the
more macro initiative  thre is a spillover effect, but it's not
primarily about the individual.   One who promotes world literacy for
example, gains indirect benefits  a better world to interact with
 but the achievement is vaster than the individual.

As I read in an adjacent post, there tends to be a (what I term) neo-non
dual,  neo-spiritualism that  is a dismissiveness of seeing( and doing) 
things that that ought to be done, could be done, inviting opportunities
to enable or support some macro expansion of happiness, understanding,
love, appreciation, environmental balance, nutritional betterment, or
educational achievement. These are viewed, it appears as  being
spiritual thorns, being highly bothered with what is 
which is perfect, so if you are bothered with what is perfect one is a
spiritual misfit and slacker.  I don't relate.

RG:  instead of suppressing them, bargaining with them, or trying to
push them away. And this truthfulness combs the desires into loving
alignment with me,
bringing the bodymind into more integrity and harmony.

TB: Letting the inviting opportunity breath a bit within
oneself, marinate, nurture, connect to ones resources  mind,
emotional, material  whatever is needed. It's a two way street.
The invitation matures by germinating inside a bit  and
ones inside (an outside) are enriched by the invitation.

As Tom Traynor has pointed out, this process of truth and integrity is
described
in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras:

When we are firmly established in truthfulness,
Action accomplishes its desired end. (2:36)
When we are firmly established in integrity, All riches present
themselves
freely. (2:37)

TB: Perhaps as less is outside of me blossoming to
nothing is outside of me there is less distinction of outer
and inner riches and micro vs macro initiatives. It's all
satisfying. It's all motivating.  It's all compelling. It's all
good. It's all intriguing. It's all fun.
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  Acceptance of what is accounts for some of this, though I have
noticed too that my deepest desires always get fulfilled, so there is
volition on my part, which somehow segues gracefully with the rest of
life. The overall benefit is much less anxiety and noisy mind.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote:
  
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@
wrote:
   
Miracles aren't miraculous events, they are a result of us
noticing miraculous events, which surround us.
   
  
   Good distinction, and good point, Jim...
  
   Letting go of our identification with the I'm-right-you're-wrong
(or vice versa) stories of the intellect may well free us up to

[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling



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

 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   I was thinking that they were showing a lack of assumptions by
  noticing that the reasons for his existence are not solid. The only
  underlying assumption is that there should be good reasons to support
  beliefs and perhaps that the more a claim deviates from our common
  knowledge base of how the world works, the more compelling the evidence
  should be. And these good reasons are not limited to the methods of
  science, we have lots of tools to gain confidence in knowledge beyond
  that context-useful system.
  
  
  Sounds reasonable.  I guess what I have a hard time accepting is the
  notion of an atheist keeping an open mind.  And yes, that is quite
  judgemental of me.  I am assuming that those who dismiss the notion of
  God,  would always be finding some reason not to believe.  That is a
  predjudice that I have which probably points to some intolerance.
 
 I don't see how either end conclusion guarantees or denies the ability to 
 have an open mind about these issues or even the quality of their thinking.  
 I have met really rational good thinkers who were believers and some atheists 
 whose position was based more on a lack of thoughtfulness than good reasons 
 for coming to that conclusion and vice versa.  If you accept certain 
 premises, it is rational and reasonable to be a born again Christian as an 
 example. 
 
 And you yourself have reasons to reject more versions of God than you accept. 
  I wonder how open you mind is to the possibility that accepting Jesus as 
 your Lord and savior is necessary to enter an eternal life in heaven.  I 
 suspect you have rejected this belief for similar reasons that I have, we 
 don't accept the premises that support the belief.
 
 And we didn't have to go far out of our way to find some reason not to 
 believe.  The assumption was just not compelling for either of us.
 
 All the God beliefs can't be right at the same time. 

All the beliefs about physics can't be right at the same time. Relativity 
theory and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. They contradict each other. 
Should I reject both of them because they both can't be right at the same time? 
 

 There are too many contradictions in what it is claimed he wants from us.  

Are you limiting God to some set of anthropormorphc projective images? 

Can't God be simple, without parts, perfect, lacking nothing, infinite 
one,without diversification. 
 

So you have picked and chosen just as I have with the best thinking skills we 
can apply.  I try to do my best.  But the fact is for both of us most of them 
didn't make the cut. 
 
 If you trace your own thought process between the God ideas you reject, and 
 whatever versions you accept, you might find that some atheists are not so 
 different from you. Some will have more or less of an open mind about the 
 existence of God than you can maintain concerning the possibility that none 
 of the God ideas refer to a factual being.

I wonder why there is this fascination in some cultures where the need of 
believing or not believing are held so prominently. I don't believe in quantum 
mechanics. I don't disbelieve. Quantum mechanics doesn't need my belief. Its 
inconsequential. Same with Leprichans. I don't believe in them, but I would 
have no problem if one showed up.  

 
 The question I pose is are you open-minded to the possibility that people 
 made up all of the God ideas?  You certainly were when you rejected the 
 necessity of maintaining an alter to Zeus. 



You don't have a Zeus alter? That explains a lot. 

Even today, billions cry out Hey Zeus! - while recognizing his divinity.  


 
 But if there is a God with God-like properties and he wants a relationship 
 with me, I am easy to find.  He could start by friending me on Facebook.  
 If the chick who was my mutual crush in elem school could find me and tell me 
 all about her shitty marriage, the Lord of existence could give me poke.  
 
 And given the disparity in our maturity levels and intelligence, and 
 compassion and on and on...its on him now.  Or her.  Preferably a her with 
 infinity hotness as one of her divine properties. And not some butta face 
 deity cuz I'm done with that coyote routine, chewing off my arm rather than 
 waking her up the next morning.
 
 Is that really too much to ask from the creatoress of the universe?  A little 
 facial symmetry, not too much junk in the trunk.  A little sompt'n sompt'n in 
 the rack zone, not too much I don't dig that.  And no I hate men short, 
 short haircut.  She can wear make-up around her eyes and lipstick but none of 
 that Mid Eastern chick, Sarah Palin, lip-liner or caked-on foundation.  I 
 hate when foundation rubs off on my cheek, so is it too much to ask for the 
 ultimate

[FairfieldLife] Re: 5 Examples of Americans Thinking Foreign People Are Magic

2011-06-19 Thread tartbrain

While I enjoy the humor, this seems off base to me.

Its not that something is foreign. Else why not the rush for Ugandan or 
Turkestanian wisdom?

To me a certain humbleness regarding modern western knowledge and 
epistimological methods is in order. While these are powerful, they have not 
uncovered all knowledge and effective methods. I hold open the possibility that 
some older or ancient cultures stumbled upon some stuff that western science 
has missed. This includes use of plants, realms of consciousness, cultural / 
social / ethical systems and practice, values, ontologies, art, and living 
happy lives. Older an ancient cultures provide a vast ripe field of hypotheses 
for testing. Taking the stuff untested is bunk. Testing it by modern western 
means is prudent and productive IMO. Look at all of the useful pharmacuticals 
that have been found and tested due to their recorded use and effectiveness in 
prior cultures.

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@... wrote:

 I love Cracked.com. Sometimes they just nail a serious
 issue, while being funny. This one should appeal to many
 here and make them laugh, while totally infuriating others.
 The folks at Cracked see the silliness of New Agers and
 India-worshippers similar to the way I do. As a teaser,
 these are the 5 topics they deal with to make a case 
 for Americans unintelligently suspending their critical
 faculties and pragmatic disbelief when they encounter
 something from a foreign culture.
 
 #5. Believing In Superstitions Just Because They Are Foreign
 #4. Blindly Trusting Foreign Medicines
 #3. Treating Foreigners as Having Unearthly Wisdom
 #2. Acting Like Foreign Text Has Mystical Power and Beauty
 #1. Making Yourself Look Wise and Exotic Via Cultural Name-Dropping
 
 We've discussed many of these idiocies here on FFL, but
 rarely as pointedly as this online humor mag does. Some-
 times you don't need a guru to tell you what's what;
 all you need is a comedian.
 
 http://www.cracked.com/article_18821_5-examples-americans-thinking-foreign-people-are-magic.html
 
 This is in my honest opinion pretty much the only reason
 Maharishi ever became popular. And still is, with some
 who aren't aware of why they believe the things they do.

[FairfieldLife] Confirmation Bias -- Discomfort with New Information and Different Views

2011-06-18 Thread tartbrain


* added for emphais

By: Christopher C. Duke, PhD

Even if you are not a psychologist, you have probably heard of confirmation 
bias. Whether you have heard of it or not, you have most certainly seen it and 
engaged in it. Confirmation bias is the very human tendency to seek out 
information that confirms our existing world views rather than challenges them. 

* Likewise, we tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting our views 
(Balcetis  Dunning, 2006). 

We all know people who have strong political views on particular topics. Are 
they likely to read and watch material that supports their views, or opposes 
their views? What about ourselves? 

*We tend to think of ourselves as rational and logical judges of the world 
around us, but this is often not the case. Confirmation bias is well 
illustrated in the following quote (courtesy of You Are Not So Smart) from 
Terry Pratchett's The Truth.

Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. 

*They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New thingswell, new 
things aren't what they expect. 

They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They 
don't want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to 
happen like that. 

*In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is 
oldsNot news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know 
is true.

Confirmation bias is a long established phenomenon in social psychology, but 
more recent research applies confirmation bias to satire. Satire is interesting 
in that it supports one type of argument through making the opposing argument, 
allowing a huge potential for confirmation bias to influence our 
interpretation. As a result, satire is often misunderstood, such as in the case 
of Archie Bunker from All in the Family. Bunker was written as an ignorant and 
racist character, intended by creator Norman Lear to satirize bigotry and be 
disliked by the audience. 

*Surprisingly to Lear, a segment of the audience saw Bunker not as satire, but 
as a role model (Vidmar  Rokeach, 1974).

More recent research has turned its eye to how people interpret The Colbert 
Report. Stephen Colbert, in his own words, plays a parody of certain types of 
conservative pundits. Prior evidence suggests that some of the people intended 
to be Colbert's satirical targets actually believe Colbert supports them, such 
as when Colbert was invited to host the 2006 White House Press Correspondents 
Dinner, or when presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thanked Colbert for his 
endorsement. In the study by LaMarre, Landreville, and Beam (2009) participants 
provided a range of survey data, including their political orientation and 
beliefs about The Colbert Report. More liberal participants believed Colbert 
was liberal and that the show was satirical. More conservative participants 
believed Colbert was conservative and genuinely believed his satirical 
arguments. 

*Essentially, viewers of liberal and conservative orientations tended to 
perceive Colbert as supporting whatever views they personally held. Some might 
interpret these findings as unfavorable towards conservatives. 

*However, everyone can be prone to these types of biases, 

**and believing you are immune may make you more vulnerable. Without a doubt, 
political orientation is no inoculation against cognitive and social biases.

Here is one tip for overcoming confirmation bias within yourself: When most 
people do reality testing they seek information that confirms their existing 
views are correct. 

*Instead, try to do the opposite. Try to find evidence that argues against your 
existing views. It may be uncomfortable, but it can be more likely to lead to 
information that is accurate rather than just comforting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Confirmation bias [was:Speculating about CC instead of doing the work]

2011-06-18 Thread tartbrain



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

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
  Using logic and reason to confirm an inner feeling. 
  
  Confirmation bias (CB) may include this but in itself much broader -
 snip
  A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people
  are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.
  Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency
  to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one
  possibility and ignoring alternatives.
 
 In many if not most cases here, the TM critics are
 unwilling to acknowledge that their idea-testing is
 biased in this way, but they very often scream
 Confirmation bias! when TM supporters suggest
 alternative, more positive possibilities to explain
 something.
 
 Interestingly, the critics also exhibit a kind of 
 meta-confirmation bias: For someone to merely
 suggest an alternative possibility, without
 insisting that it's the correct one, tends to
 confirm to the critics that the person making the
 suggestion is biased. They ignore the alternative
 possibility that a party who is neutral on the issue
 in question could also see more than the negative
 possibility proposed by the critics.


Some thoughts, not agreeing or countering your points, simply exploring some 
ideas that your post invoked.

In general, and simplistically, there appear to be at least three camps: strong 
belief system or hypothesis of A vs B, and those (C) exploring the issue, 
perhaps in some cases exploring their own biases and questioning their prior 
assumptions. 

Built on this is CB about peoples orientation per the above three camps. That 
is, it appears some assume an explorer, a C, to be either A or B and confirm 
that by looking only at whatever angle the C is exploring on a particular day. 
Which tends to bog down the exploratory process. I agree (if I understood your 
point) that responses that assume one has a firm position, when one is merely 
exploratorally suggesting alternatives tends to bog down discussion.  

And a C may assume everyone is a C -- exploring ideas, assumptions, belief 
frameworks. This too can lead to some interesting, if not also bogged down 
discussions. One is out exploring, assuming others are also, and BAM, out of 
nowhere,one is intellectually mugged. My sense is that back 8 or so years ago, 
FFL had mostly Cs and over time the pattern has shifted towards the polarities 
or A or B.  

Questioning ones assumptions and fact database are always healthy IMO. I am 
not sure why there is such apparent resistance to doing so at times (for all of 
us).  I think its a discomfort thing. Its far more comfortable to hear a voice 
or see a factoid (by itself) that confirms our views, conclusions, beliefs and 
inner frameworks. It can be unsettling (and perhaps later exhilarating) to have 
the foundations of ones belief system messed with. It can be existentially 
threatening. 

The degree of threat may be correlated to the firmness of ones beliefs. If one 
holds a belief to be 100% certain, or 99.999%, then the more unsettling and 
threatened on is when that belief is challenged. It perhaps is seen as a this 
or that discrete choice. I tend to (I think I do at least -- an assumption to 
be challenged) readjust probabilities when new evidence is presented. Say from 
belief that something has a 80% probability of being valid, down to 75%. And 
over time, incrementally, an 80% belief may morph to a 20% belief.

There is something however about a (near) 100% belief that appears to be very 
sticky, adhesive, gravitational and inertic. Its hard to move even a few % off 
of it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Confirmation bias [was:Speculating about CC instead of doing the work]

2011-06-18 Thread tartbrain



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
  
   Funny that the anti-Maharishi, anti-TMO, anti-enlightenmentudeness  
   clique here continuously claims that those who make positive claims about 
   Maharishi, the TMO and enlightenment are doing so to garner attention and 
   feel special and elevated above others. The same could easily be said 
   about those claiming to have had sex with Maharishi. After all, what 
   would be more special than that? Look at me, I boinked Maharishi 
   Yeah, look at you, center stage... 
  
  That might have worked better when she was actually in the movement.  But 
  she took decades to process the experience it all and her account doesn't 
  come off that way.  It is hard to discuss the book if you haven't read it.  
  But talking about it this way without reading it does reveal some stuff 
  about your perspective.
  
  The problem with the enlightenment claim is that it IS a claim of intrinsic 
  superiority on whatever you are knowing.  This is just a specific 
  experience and only applies to it.  And it was a special relationship she 
  had with Maharishi with or without the undercover activities. But that 
  doesn't give her the right to tell me she has discovered the purpose of 
  life itself.  And thankfully she hasn't tried.
  
   
   There is also a propensity among this anti-everything-Maharishi crowd to 
   question any experience had in the presence of Maharishi. Why not 
   seriously question these claims of sex? After all, this could be some 
   kind of fantasy fulfillment for the women involved, after rounding for 
   years and becoming progressively more and more unstable (as we are always 
   told by the TM detractors here regarding the results of TM and TMSP). It 
   sounds like confirmation bias to me.
 
 You need to read the book if you want to talk about it.  A few people knew of 
 this going on back in the 70's and everyone, everyone kept it quiet.  No one 
 wanted it to come out even if true.  One, a very smart and devoted person I 
 know, spent about 2 years years and their own money investigating the sex 
 rumors because they had to know before they could go on giving their LIVES to 
 MMY and his organization.  

I was aware of a similar person. Perhaps it was the same one. When he quietly 
dropped out, it gave more weight to it -- along with other data points here and 
there. Not a Confirmational Bias (CB) thing (which is humorous if we are 
talking about the same person) because I was inclined not to believe such 
things. Back then, around 77, I was open to both sides, and I was surprised a 
bit at my reaction, and that of a close friend who revealed the information, 
that it did not seem to make a huge difference to me. To her it was a much 
bigger deal. 

Judith refused to discuss it with  back then, but there were other women to 
talk to.  Generally they did not want to talk about the sex, altho they were 
clear it had happened.   But when he found out the information and what he 
thought to be the truth, he quietly left TM, very quietly.  Would not say a 
word, just left. I believe several other people left, quietly, for similar 
reasons.

Some long term, early india course teachers seemed to drop out around then. 
Seemed odd at the time. Its only (idle) speculation, but knowledge of such 
events may have been a factor. Others, it appears, who did know, stayed in TMO 
or at least its outer trappings, for decades 
 

 I heard of this back in the mid-70's and decided tWhat better way to imagine 
 that your guru finds you special.  And so I had to be careful about believing 
 the rumors.  But there is too much smoke around this issue for there not to 
 be some sort of fire. Too many different accounts. 


Yes. That is why the he said, she said views appear so simplistic. Its 
ignoring the perponderance of information. Some people would only believe if 
there were video tapes. And even then they would yell photoshop (or the video 
equivalent).  For me its in the 98% probability range. Not certain, and not 
something that matters much to me or affects my vies on things TMO and MMY.  

 I have no doubt it occurred, none. And I still do TM, and think MMY was 
 pretty great in many ways.  He made some mistakes.
  
  No, it reveals yours if you haven't read the book.
  
   
   
   Regardless of our opinions, there is zero evidence of Maharishi  having 
   had sex with anyone. Lots of hearsay, accusations, rumors and beliefs- an 
   airtight case within airtight minds- however the only things missing are 
   *facts* and *evidence*.
  
  So if a person witnesses something or is a participant, their description 
  of it is not credible once it leaves their lips? We are only confident 
  about things that happen to us but shouldn't be fooled by book

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  As it turned out, 
at the height of this experience he was giving advanced 
techniques and I got to go up and sit by his side, 
literally at his feet, and have him spend a few minutes 
with me one on one, talking to me first and then giving 
me the advanced technique. He didn't notice a thing.

...
There was a line of others waiting for their techniques
so I didn't bother him with any questions at that time,
and before I had a chance to do so the experiences had
faded and my questions and any confirmation from him
would have been irrelevant. 

I've actually heard the same experience from others.
At the height of their highest experiences, mapping
from their perspective one to one to his descriptions
of CC, they got to be close to Maharishi and he never
noticed. So much for the notion of like knows like.
Either that or he really didn't care enough about his
students to notice them, period. Or any other explan-
ation you prefer.
   
   I agree - this is odd, to say the least - that your Master 
   (at the time) would not say something to you quietly just 
   to acknowledge the experience you were having.  
  
  Thank you again for yet another thoughtful reply. Yes,
  that thought occurred to me, even at the time. And yet.
  And yet I was at that point -- 5 months into rounding
  and not yet made a TM teacher -- such a TB that I found
  ways to write off this experience as Not Particularly
  Significant. I mean, what could be significant about it?
  One of his students having subjectively realized the goal
  he'd been selling all this time? Even if the student was
  just experiencing early on experiences of the enlight-
  enment process and not fully established in CC, if you
  were a Maha Rishi, shouldn't you have noticed?
  
  And yet. At the time, I was such a TB that I felt that 
  any fault -- if there was one -- had to be mine. Here I
  was, experiencing word-for-word the goal that he'd sold
  me five years earlier. What sweat off his balls was that,
  I told myself. He has far larger concerns. 
  
  Such is youth.  :-)
  
   It never occurred to me before  that MMY seemed not to 
   talk to people one on one about their experiences.  
  
  It occurred to me, early on, because I had experienced it. 
  
   When I had one of my more major experiences, I was late to 
   get to the lecture hall in Humboldt (could not figure out 
   how to come out of meditation since I thought I had to 
   cause the experience to end before opening my eyes!  
   Finally just gave up, opened my eyes, and went to the 
   cafeteria anyway).  So I was late to dinner and then 
   showed up at the lecture hall about 15 minutes into the 
   talk he was giving. I was still having the experience, 
   just the beginning of a fade.  I walked in the door way 
   at the back of this huge hall, and it seemed to me that 
   just as I entered MMY turned his head and looked right 
   over at me, right in the eye and nodded - I felt he 
   knew exactly what I was experiencing and nodded to say 
   so.  That could have all been wishful thinking.  But I 
   continue to think he knew.
  
  And I, for one, am not going to dispute it. 
  
  This, for me, is a fundamental part of the wonder of the
  spiritual path. What significance do we give our personal,
  subjective experiences? Do we consider them true, because
  we experienced them, or even Truth, because We experienced
  them, or are they just more data in the input queue of our
  internal AI servers? 
  
...
  And he'd notice. Sometimes he'd even come up to me after
  the meeting and talk to me about it, asking What have you
  been up to that has you glowing so brightly? 
  

...
  He looked at me, not having seem me for a few weeks, and
  said, This place agrees with you. I haven't seen you 
  this happy and this full of light in years.
  
  Go figure. Go fuckin' figure.
 
 
 I know.  We were so young then that we did not have the simple wisdom to ask 
 the obvious questions, like what do you make of my current experiences (to 
 MMY), or how can this be if I have been smoking dope for the past week?  And 
 we were settled into a mode of thinking that shied away from being so direct 
 and even thinking like that (at least I was) and we were young and respecting 
 our older revered teachers.  I heard from others at the time that Rama was 
 able to do these incredible things witnessed by hundreds, not just a few.  
 How in the world do you explain that and then have him say what he did to 
 you?  Yeah, go figure sums it up.


My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in acknowledging 
and providing feedback on experience. First, in every flower line (4-8 per day) 
he would stop at at particular person and say Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very good 
or

[FairfieldLife] When It Started to Get Crazy

Who of us had not written that as our assessment of the Movement at this or 
that time, for this or that project. 

And there are many ways of looking at the same situation. What was crazy for 
one person was not crazy for another. Part of this may be due to different 
perspectives on what was happening.

It appears many comments about crazy days, crazy projects, strange behavior 
is from a linear, project management sort of perspective -- thinking if we are 
trying to accomplish X -- this is NOT the way to do it. Or, alternatively, why 
the hell are we doing project X. There are other perspectives. Some may be 
closer to what MMY was actually doing.

I'll state a perspective, not THE perspective, simply -- without the nuances. 
The World Plan, Heaven on Earth, MIU, big projects, unconventional behavior, 
etc were not about such initiatives. They were simply tools for MMY to help us 
break our boundaries. 

Do you think conventional projects, plans and implementation are going to break 
boundaries? No, they generally confirm the status quo. On the other hand, 
crazy, outlandish, odd, squirmish projects were just that because we had inner 
attachments, ego issues, projections, assumptions about how things should be 
and what is normal, etc. Huge and or crazy projects, often both were a set of 
tools that MMY used to break these internal boundaries.

The outer fruits of the actions were up to nature -- and not the focus.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice



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


 when people didn't respond to his announced enlight-
 enmentitudeness the way he wanted them to.

As elaborated in an adjacent post, the 10,000 QA at the mic between MMY and 
those on the course were often about experiences. I never saw a big reaction 
from MMY. No hot damn! thats IT! You GOT it bro!! High five! 

One got guidance, but not ego boosting (which is a step in the counter 
direction). Sometimes there was ego busting. 

The / a lesson from witnessing this huge QA parade was that:

1) experiences were natural, they were not something to make a big fuss about, 
no special status was given, everything from normalization to peak experiences 
were part of the whole, no need to make a big fuss about the whole.

2) even the most detailed clear experiences were basically classified as hmm, 
something good is happening, but that's not IT. That is, what many 
self-diagnosed, and perhaps self-confirmed to be higher states were not. It 
produced a certain healthy rational skepticism about self-confirmed claims of 
higher states.

3) one generally didn't talk about their experiences outside of the QA with 
MMY. Progress was being made was the only important thing. No need to talk 
about it or broadcast it.

4) Sort of like the first rule of enlightenment club is there is no 
enlightenment club.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When It Started to Get Crazy



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote:

 
 On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:52 AM, tartbrain wrote:
 
  Who of us had not written that as our assessment of the Movement at this or 
  that time, for this or that project. 
 
 I give up~~who.
 Why do I almost constantly get a vague feeling of
 lecturing the ignorant masses~~a la Jim, just with
 slightly less of a condescending tone~~from your
 posts, tart? 


Maybe it's me.

Lecturing? I was reflecting on a perspective, a thought, an alternative POV, a 
riff. Maybe not be everyone's cup of tea. Easy to skip over such posts. 

 
 Sal




A) I had a bagel today

B) Why do you always think you are so superior just be

[FairfieldLife] Re: Two Approaches To Spiritual Teaching - Theory vs. Practice



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

 Tart, *not* wishing to argue with you or diminish what you say in any
 way, just presenting a Deva's Advocate position the same way Curtis
 might, do you notice that the personalized feedback I have highlighted
 below, along with my occasional comments in brackets, is a lot like
 cold
 reading of pretend psychics or stage magicians or charlatan
 astrologers?
 
 That is, no actual personal information is conveyed at all. Instead, a
 general statement that could apply to anyone is presented, leaving the
 person to whom it is presented to project into it whatever meaning
 they wish to. In other words, each of these statements can be seen as
 fodder for confirmation bias, and not personal at all.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote:
 
  My experience and observation was that MMY was quite involved in
 acknowledging and providing feedback on experience. First, in every
 flower line [* Just pointing out that waiting in a flower line is in
 itself setting up confirmation bias. You're standing there for minutes
 or hours waiting, waiting, waiting, priming yourself for something good
 to happen. Who should be surprised when it does? *]  (4-8 per day) he
 would stop at at particular person and say *Hmm, enjoying, Hmm, very
 good* or something similar -- which appeared to be an acknowledgment
 and encouragement of their particular state or experience at that time.
 For example, as MMY entered into the lecture hall, a woman (said later)
 she was seeing the heavens open up, and hordes of angels or such descend
 as MMY entered the hall) and he stopped and said *Hmm, its beautiful,
 yes*.
 
  And he acknowledged personal situations. At the beginning of my TTC he
 asked each of us to come forward, to approach him (I think we gave him a
 flower, or simply bowed our heads) and he said to me *ah, you made
 it*. Prior to that, while I had been on two courses with him, up to
 that time there was no reason for him to know who I was - I had not met
 privately with him or been at the mic for questions. But it had been a
 big production to get to TTC -- and he somehow knew that and
 acknowledged it.
 
  Some years later, a friend who had been teaching in a distant land
 came back to see him and the first thing MMY said was *Hmm, so you have
 been bored, yes?* My friend was very clear in his mind that MMY was
 referring to his many dalliances with local women. [* Again, no specific
 information was conveyed, merely a vague, generic statement that could
 have meant anything, but was interpreted by the student to mean
 whatever he determined it meant. *]
  snip

True. These were vague (understated, or subtle are other perspectives) and 
surely a LOT of mood making came from such. I am reflecting on my impression -- 
and my experience. Just providing a counter point to the comments, as I 
understood them, that MMY did not provide much feedback on experience. Maybe 
that's true, maybe its not. Maybe there is a huge in between. 



  And sometimes, *it was just a look he gave - and that was all that was
 needed. Or, he would just start lecturing on a point that was on
 someones mind* (which may have been coincidental -- but happened a lot.)


Again, there is no way to validate this -- other than the people, including 
myself, got useful feedback. Maybe it was all internal. But even then points to 
PERHAPS more refined intuition and self-sufficiency (which MMY would have 
enjoyed more to see, IMO)

[FairfieldLife] Re: When It Started to Get Crazy

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
 On Behalf Of tartbrain
 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:53 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] When It Started to Get Crazy

 Who of us had not written that as our assessment of the Movement at this or
 that time, for this or that project. 

 And there are many ways of looking at the same situation. What was crazy
 for one person was not crazy for another. Part of this may be due to
 different perspectives on what was happening.

 It appears many comments about crazy days, crazy projects, strange
 behavior is from a linear, project management sort of perspective --
 thinking if we are trying to accomplish X -- this is NOT the way to do it.
 Or, alternatively, why the hell are we doing project X. There are other
 perspectives. Some may be closer to what MMY was actually doing.

 I'll state a perspective, not THE perspective, simply -- without the
 nuances. The World Plan, Heaven on Earth, MIU, big projects, unconventional
 behavior, etc were not about such initiatives. They were simply tools for
 MMY to help us break our boundaries. 

 Do you think conventional projects, plans and implementation are going to
 break boundaries? No, they generally confirm the status quo. On the other
 hand, crazy, outlandish, odd, squirmish projects were just that because we
 had inner attachments, ego issues, projections, assumptions about how things
 should be and what is normal, etc. Huge and or crazy projects, often both
 were a set of tools that MMY used to break these internal boundaries.

 The outer fruits of the actions were up to nature -- and not the focus.

 And the ultimate boundary breaker - his sexual affairs. Actually, he hated
 sex. But he made a great sacrifice, knowing that someday, the whole thing
 would go public and break boundaries big time.

 If you don't like that theory, how about this?: both the affairs and the
 whacky projects were symptomatic of a brilliant, highly-evolved man who may
 not have been as fully enlightened as he thought he was, and whose
 unresolved issues threw him off course.

That may also be true. I was presenting a perspective, more formally a 
hypothesis. I am not tied to the hypothesis I presented. The validity of a 
hypothesis is how well it explains observed data. (And if the model can 
successfully predict future outcomes.) Both hypotheses could explain the 
craziness. 

Or something in between. I said I left out the nuances -- for brevity and 
simplicity.

And we each have our own data points. You may have seen crazy stuff that the 
hypothesis that I riffed on does not well explain. I may have some observations 
and experience which is consistent with the hypothesis and less consistent with 
yours. And vice versa. 

I can question the value of riffing on such hypotheses. Its not to rationalize 
the behavior. (Rationality per se is not a strong component of the hypothesis I 
laid out.) If anything, its an exercise in not being overly attached to a 
single perspective, to not assume one knows anything with certainty. (a la, 
how do you know that's true) My life, inner and outer, is not much different 
either way. I don't have a vested emotional, intellectual or existential 
interest in either or any such hypotheses.

I explored a thought. It may or may not grist for further conversation. Such is 
the way with posting.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote:

 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
 On Behalf Of jpgillam
 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:59 AM
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Help a Saint - Lose Your Badge

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer wrote:

   I think it's a pity that the movement continues to sabotage 
   its own interests by behaving like a blinking cult. 

 Many of us think the TM organization's prime interest is to 
 teach TM, but that's a mistake on our part. The TM organization's 
 prime interest is to maintain the purity of the teaching. That's why 
 it bans cross-pollination with other teachings.

 Behaving like a cult does not interfere with, and may actually 
 promote, the maintenance of the teaching in the form Maharishi 
 transmitted it.

 Maharishi used to say the purity of the teaching depends upon the purity of
 the teachers. If that's true, the teaching was never entirely pure, but it
 might be made more pure if the teachers got the blessings of a saint or two.

Is that parallel to telling ones spouse our marriage vows will be stronger if 
I get the 'blessings' of another lover or two? 

There appear to be a couple of approaches: smorgasbord and chef' special. In 
the first, one creates one own meal, as one thinks best suits them. Another is 
to trust the chef and say, Serve me what your think is the best -- you are the 
chef. In the latter, one doesn't typically say -- but I want to get a side 
order from the chef down the street. 

Both the smorgasbord and chef special approaches may be useful -- one for some, 
the other for others. But asking for side dishes from another chef when asking 
the chef's special may not instill the highest devotion and attention from the 
chef to prepare his utmost best for you. He may wait until you are a serious 
diner.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A few Good Books



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@ wrote:
  
   Any good reading suggestions for the summer - fiction or non?
  
  I recently read A Hole at the Bottom of the Sea by journalist Joel 
  Achenbach, a very well-done blow-by-blow account for the general reader of 
  the Deepwater Horizon disaster. One big disappointment: he tells you almost 
  nothing about the operators of the underwater remote vehicles that actually 
  did most of the incredibly exacting physical work of rebuilding the 
  wellhead to stop the gusher.
  
  I read so much nonfiction on the Web that I stick mostly with fiction for 
  bedtime reading.
  
  The Brothers Boswell by Philip Baruth is a sort of literary thriller told 
  from the perspective of the brother of James Boswell, the biographer of 
  Samuel Johnson. Very offbeat, gorgeously written. I found it oddly 
  unsatisfying at the end, but it's one heck of a ride.
  
  I'm on a historical mystery kick and have been working my way through two 
  historical detective series that I've been greatly enjoying.
  
  One is the Matthew Shardlake novels by C.J. Sansome. Set in Tudor England 
  in the waning days of Henry VIII, they involve the attempts of a 
  middle-aged hunchbacked London lawyer to unravel various murders and 
  political plots. They're generally very well written with a great deal of 
  engrossing period detail (although the author has a few careless tics 
  that can be annoying and should have been cleaned up by his editors). 
  Shardlake is a fascinating character study as he develops through the 
  novels in the series, a good-hearted, honest, intelligent, reflective man 
  with the best of motives whose personality flaws often get him in trouble 
  nonetheless.
  
  These are *long* novels, 500-700 pages, and while there's plenty of action, 
  they don't always move at a breakneck pace. You have to be willing to let 
  the author take his time unfolding the story and just let yourself soak in 
  the setting.
  
  The other set of historical mysteries is the Sugawara Akitada series, set 
  in 11th-century Japan, by I.J. Parker. Much of what I said above about the 
  Shardlake series applies to this one as well, but the setting is much less 
  familiar and even more colorful. For me, the main attraction here is not so 
  much the plots (which are intricate and certainly compelling) but the main 
  character, who is so enormously engaging in his complexity and humanity 
  that I actually feel bereft of his company when I finish one of the novels. 
  He's such a vivid personality it's hard not to imagine he must have been a 
  real person who has channeled himself through Parker.
  
  The quality of Parker's writing is uneven. It's mostly very good--and there 
  are some wonderfully lyrical passages--but every now and then you'll run 
  into awkward bits, especially in the dialogue.
  
  Both series, although they're very neatly plotted, are primarily character 
  driven, so you should, if possible, read them in order, as all the 
  important characters develop and change over the course of the series. More 
  than enough light but absorbing reading to last through the summer. (And 
  all but the most recent in each series are available used on Amazon for 
  under a dollar plus $3.98 shipping.)
  
  
  This is my 50th for the week. See you all Friday or Saturday.
 
 Thanks for the ideas - will start with Sugara Akitada series


For those that like to listen to books, Audible.com has these two.
http://www.audible.com/search/ref=sr_lftbox_1_1

a bit pricey at regular price but a credit costs $8-11 or so depending on your 
subsciption level.

[FairfieldLife] Tenacious vs Take It Easy, Take it As It Comes (was Speculating )

While I am not arguing, and certainly I have no fix on the definitive word on 
anything, I view it (at times) from a different angle than you. You present a 
sort of Horatio Alger spiritual unfoldment bio and can do gumption and 
earnestness. I can relate. My first 12 years of TM, 17-29 or so, seemed like 
that at the time. Looking back at that, or any aspect of my life, the question 
that arises is could I have done anything different. As posted previously, I 
think free will is a bit of a mirage. It sure seems real, but when you look 
deeper at it, live deeper aspects o fit, there is no there there, it would 
seem. 

Or much less there than we presume. What else could I have done? Its like an 
equation A + B = C. A = my internal state, vision, POV, yearning for  something 
undefined but tangible. B = Broad and deep spiritual awakening in America and 
the world in mid to late 60s spilling over into the 70's. (Broad and deep 
relative to where the culture was at that time.) Lots of teacher and books 
emerging. Nothing like today, but lots of new stuff, relative to that time and 
what preceded it. C =  a 12 year (turn of Jupiter) deep dive into TM, MMY, 
teaching, globe trotting.  A + B = C. 

C was the only possible (or at least one of a few) result. Sure, on the 
surface, it LOOKED like there were a billion degrees of freedom. Looking 
deeper, I think there were very few degrees of freedom, very little free will 
to not jump in tenaciously with everything I had. I simple followed the path of 
least resistance. The ball of my life could only roll in one direction. There 
was no free will in that, just as the ball has no free will to roll down and 
alternative course.

My sense is, that while it may appear to you that you sucked it up, made a huge 
decision to follow this path, gritted your teeth and perceivered across a trail 
of great hardship and challenge, Indiana Jones style, from another angle, you 
did nothing but follow the path of least resistance. You simple did what you 
HAD to do, There was no alternative. 

Does telling others the Horatio Alger version benefit others. Yes, I think it 
does. It opens up options in peoples minds, trains their intellect a bit, and 
fills in some pieces that make up the terrain by which their ball rolls down 
the hill, EFFORTLESSLY, on the path of least resistance. While the Horatio 
Alger story has value, it is also a myth. (Myths have value, IMO, even if not 
literally true.)

A Maharishi Jyotishee (of all people -- one who I would have expected to at 
least parrot the outer house / party line) indicated some things that would 
unfold in my lifetime (several jyotishees, at different readings said the 
same). However, the latter one, I politely but firmly challenged. Among my 
points of challenge was So even if i totally abandon my practice, this will 
unfold?. He was adament that my karma was clear from my chart and nothing I 
could do could stop it -- even if I abandoned all spiritual practices and 
pursuits. 

While I don't live my life by jyotish, nor necessarily grant this guy a huge 
assessment of credibility just because he was a MMY Jyotishee, I do find that 
this is reflective of the inner message of some if not much of MMY's teaching. 
Take it easy, take it as it comes if REALLY lived, can have as much power in 
ones life as TM itself, IMO. While in outer forums MMY may have stoked the 
fires of Horatioism within the weary masses of seekers, I found, when he was 
more informal, not lecturing and inspiring masses, his approach was along the 
lines of Take it easy, take it as it comes./ Do nothing, accomplish 
everything/ Let go / Act naturally, according to your nature.   

I have found in my own life, that letting go, not being tied to certain 
envisioned outcomes, taking it as it comes, being easy with it all, doing 
nothing (in the sense of NOT bucking it up, gritting ones teeth, pounding the 
table, and vowing to achieve a particular envisoned goal or requiring a 
particular outcome) have all been a fuel of nectar for me. 

Thus, I periodically rib you a bit about the irony of intensely desiring (which 
is my take of your view and advice) the desireless state. I can and do see it 
both ways. But the intense desire, relentless, tenacious thing, while that may 
be what it appears to be on the outside, on the inside, for me, on the inside, 
its all take it easy, let the ball roll where it will, down the path of least 
resistance, don't resist, take it as it comes. 

So I am puzzled if you really mean tenatious (and relentless) as a reflection 
of your inner experience. At least looking back on it. Could you have done 
anything different?
  
 




. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 If a person holds their goal of spiritual liberation tenaciously, nothing can 
 stop them. Absolutely nothing. On the other hand, if at the first serious 
 challenge to the ego, the person derails themselves spiritually, their

[FairfieldLife] Speculating about CC instead of doing the work[was Re:Two...questions from Turq]

https://picasaweb.google.com/gardenofmonet/Durer#slideshow/5258539594497387762

Here is Quicksilver's answer.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote:
 
  I agree. Exercising his body would do him a lot more good than running his 
  mind in vicious little circles.:-)
 
 
 Did you not mention that walking on the beach was inducive to your 
 enlightenment ? Would you care to expand on this point, is there perhaps a 
 connection between walking, fresh air and awakening ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cult 101: Reinforce the Manufactured Need


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote:

 Bozotronic Barry is here to enlighten us that 

the goal of self realization is a manufactured addiction.

First, do you see self-realization as a goal? I make a large distinction 
between goals an outcomes.  The ball rolls down the hill, according to the path 
of least resistance, and reaches the bottom of the hill (valley). Was it the 
ball's goal to reach that certain spot in the valley? Not in my view. The ball 
just did what came naturally, and found itself  at its landing spot in the 
valley. No goal at all.

In roughly parallel fashion, the process of the unfoldment of outer layers of 
dross to reveal the joy of Existence everywhere (which I believe you use the 
label self-realization to describe) does not appear to be a goal of life, but 
rather a natural, unavoidable outcome of life. (Thats a macro view, the micro 
view is similar -- self-realization is a natural, unavoidable, outcome of 
ones life(s). 

The outcome is not pre-destined (in Calvinistic sense). One is not elected by 
God to heaven (and others are not eternally damned).  It is all propelled by 
the nature of life to seek greater happiness/fulfillment/satisfaction. And this 
is another one of MMY's most powerful and concise sutras (Live all ten or so of 
these powerful short sentence sutras and all will be given unto thee.) 
Ironically, its a random process. Like he ball, you can't predict its every 
twist and turn down the hill. But it is inevitable that it will eventually 
reach the valley 9the state of least excitation, the cessations of 
fluctuations.)

I can see how people at the top of th hill may say, My goal is to roll to the 
bottom of the hill. That does not make it a legitimate goal (as in there were 
choice involved to fulfill the goal or not). its like a kid saying its my goal 
to grow to be an adult. Goal it up all you want kid, its gonna happen whether 
you goal it, reject it or ignore it.

Self-Realization the unfoldment, not the label, is manufactured, in a sense, 
into the blueprint of th universe -- the natural tendency of life to flow words 
satisfaction an happiness. (Turq has revealed some uncanny wisdom here. )



 He exclaims that he is firmly in control and dammit he's going to stay that 
 way, firmly in charge, firmly in control, and firmly deluded (oh, and very, 
 very, very special). 
 

As a taoist a heart, I sense that Turq does not feel that he is in control of 
anything. (tho it appears that he does like to play with cause and effect. hey 
kid, pull my fingers. The result is always the  same. Teak someone here, they 
react over there. Not that I am a fan of tweaking.)


 Enjoy yourself Bozo,

I never have gotten the name calling. Ah, but you are a fan of labels. :) how 
does disparaging name calling come out of the field of the Pure Joy of 
Existence? 

while the rest of us enjoy the state of complete freedom

freedom not to name call?


and get on with our lives. I'll be checking wikipedia regularly though for 
that article extolling you alone as have discovered a truth which has eluded 
all of the great teachers and saints throughout history. LOL. :-) 
 

He has! As has everyone. Unique Truth is revealed by everyone in the context of 
their lives. Why do you think the One (appeared to have) created the many. (You 
must have missed Shiva's last satsang -- he gave a beautiful transmission on 
this very point.)



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Having noticed that one of the most classic cult tactics
  has been trotted out lately, I'll comment on it.
  
  That's where someone who has heavily invested in a goal
  or set of goals sold to them by a cult or religious trad-
  ition reacts to those who challenge the value or worth of
  those goals by trying to suggest that those doing the 
  challenging have somehow failed in their own spiritual 
  quest.

Thats the tragedy (and comedy) of getting wrapped up in labels (like self 
realization). My label is better than your label! You are not living your 
label, but I am living my label, you tainted twit-brained tamasic devil you
..
 
  The dynamic and intent of this cult technique is preach-
  ing to the already converted. It can be synopsized as,
  Pay no attention to that person who is suggesting that
  the 'goal' you've been trained to pursue as the 'highest'
  goal in life might not be. He or she is only saying that
  because they've 'failed' in pursuing the goal themselves.
  Ignore their suggestions that 'seeking enlightenment' is
  a lot like getting hooked on heroin, and keep shooting up.
  
And such scams only work when people have deluded themselves into thinking that 
there are achievable goals (that is that one achieves things by grit and 
determination, like Indiana Jones as chela, and that self-realization is a 
goal. 



  I've suggested several times on this forum that I think
  that the supposed need to become enlightened is very

[FairfieldLife] The Nabs Effect

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076783,00.html

Liberation is unfolding everywhere.

[FairfieldLife] Re: God Caught Backing Multiple GOP Candidates for President

God told me to definitely not run. 

  But I said,
Lord, how could I run when its all Stillness? 

  He said
No, I meant stop running off at the mouth. 

  I said
I will try. 

  He laughed and said, 
Try? Try!? Ha, as if you ever could and ever will. Let My Will be Done -- just 
sit back and enjoy the ride.

  I said
So you DO have a will and guide each life towards your goal.   

  By now God was rolling on the floor (which was also him), laughing
No, thats propaganda used by those who solely want to manipulate you. 

   He paused, then said
Soley, ha get it, ha!

  God loves puns, and he added, 
While I am everywhere, I am even more manifest in puns.

  God continued,
My Will is for you to enjoy. I Enjoy everything that you enjoy. Thats the 
purpose of life and creations, the expansion of Happiness. The only thing I did 
was to make the Universe enjoyable -- so that all my creatures would seek 
happiness where ever they found it, giving me that thrill in everything thing 
they do, eventually coming back to me, recognizing me in everything as the 
Source  of all happiness.

And you can't try to be happy, you can't make happiness a goal. happiness is 
everywhere, just drink it in. You don't need to plan to be happy.

  I asked, 
Its that simple? No trying, just be happy and that be doing that I will become 
absorbed in you?  

  God laughed his long loud, inclusive laugh and said,
Its even simpler. When you find and express the Happiness -- that is ME. 
Everywhere I am manifest as Happiness. Be with That, become absorbed fully in 
that, share that, enable others to be happy. Live life with a smile. Realize 
that the trees, the sky, mountains and oceans are nothing but dancing Joy, and 
that Joy is me.  
  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@... wrote:

 
 God Caught Backing Multiple GOP Candidates for  President
 After a thorough investigation, Daily Intel has discovered that God 
 is separately backing at least three different contenders for the 
 Republican presidential nomination.
 
 Over the course of the past few  months and even years, God has sent
 signs and direct messages to each of  these candidates encouraging them
 to run, presumably without telling  them that he supports other
 candidates as well.
 Herman Cain: When Cain's granddaughter was born in  1999, Cain says his
 first thought upon holding her was, What do I do to  make this a better
 world? Cain told Christian radio host Bryan Fischer  in January, I
 know that that had to be God almighty sending that  thought through my
 mind. That's the background for what happened twelve  years later.
 
 
 While campaigning for president around December of 2010,  Cain was
 feeling tired and discouraged when he received a direct sign  from God
 that he must continue. This sign was delivered via  God's preferred
 method of communication, the text message:
 
 Cain has also heard from God more directly, as he told a tea  party
 rally in April
 http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2011/04/16/pawlenty,_cain_a\
 ddress_tea_party_rally_in_iowa :
 
 
 Cain told the crowd about his battle with cancer in 2006, saying he's 
 been totally cancer free for the past five years.
 
 You want to know why? God said, 'Not yet Herman,' Cain told the 
 crowd. God said, 'Not yet. I've got something else for you to do.' And 
 it might be to become the president of the United States of America.
 
 Rick Santorum: But around the same time God was  encouraging Herman Cain
 to run for president, he was also telling Rick  Santorum to throw his
 hat in the race. As Karen Santorum told  CBN's David Brody in May
 http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/05/03/exclusive-karen-sa\
 ntorum-on-2012-race-its-about-going-on.aspx  about her husband's
 decision to run for  president, It really boils down to God's will.
 What is it that God  wants? ... We have prayed a lot about this
 decision, and we believe with  all our hearts that this is what God
 wants.
 
 Michele Bachmann: Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann is all but  certain
 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55816.html  to jump into the
 race soon, and when she does, it will  signal that God has been quietly
 encouraging her to run for president as  well. As Bachmann told  World
 Net Daily in 2009
 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=106941 , she would
 never run without God's personal  endorsement:
 
 
 If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it, 
 she answered. When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do 
 something, I've said yes to it. But I will not seek a higher office if 
 God is not calling me to do it. That's really my standard.
 
 If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve, she concluded, 
 but if I am not called, I wouldn't do it.
 
 Bachmann recently  confirmed
 http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/episode.cfm/3839  that she has, indeed,
 had that calling and that tugging  on my heart.
 
 God hasn't been universally generous with his

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cult 101: Reinforce the Manufactured Need