[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Well, [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0 But the world existed before man existed here and will continue to be long after we are gone , so the sutra must be referring to a change in one's experience of the world , rather than the world actually disappearing once everyone is enlightened as some have suggested. The sense of unity overshadows the world of name and form. I dont think its meant literally .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
There is so little real content on FFL lately that forms of cheap amusement like this are one of the only things that keep me around. So, it's all about Judy, and not a 'simple question for the New Agers', Jeff. Reduced to a debate about movie hair-do's. Very impressive. Bring the conversation down to your to your own level, so you can get in a word or two edge-wise! Looks like we've got a couple of 'New Agers', and seems to be a TB (Turq Bee) on the forum, folks. LoL!. Jeff: Not sure I follow your logical sequence but hey its all about creating your own reality isnt it. TurquoiseB wrote: My logical sequence was merely a parody of Judy's. I just *love* pushing her buttons and then sitting back and watching her react and try to win some argument that is one only in her mind. The whole Dances With Nitpicks thread, with her making 20+ posts simply because I corrected her by pointing out that Mary McDonnell made the decision to wear her hair loose rather than braided has been really, really FUN to watch. BTW When I went to see Dances with Wolves it was a first date with a pretty cute girl called Rosie ( long straight black hair not tied back , definite slattern ). She confessed to me afterwards that she had really needed to pee most of the film but was too embarassed to get up and visit the ladies room, and was actually in quite a bit of pain for most of it ! Just wanted to share with you. Good to know that there are other slattern-lovers out there. :-) In retrospect, the thing I found funniest about the whole Dances With Wolves thang was *not* that Judy failed to address the fact that there is *not a single scene in the film* that portrays Mary McDonnell's hair as dirty or matted the way she claimed it was, but the fact that this whole insane theory of hers *never even occurred to her* until her sister mentioned it. Isn't that classic? On the one hand, it supports my theory that the whole slattern thing is the result of some childhood trauma, in that her sister was *also* told to Go comb your hair, and probably by the same petty tyrant. On the other, it's one of the best examples *ever* of Judy BELIEVING WHAT SOMEONE TOLD HER TO BELIEVE. By her own admission, it never occurred to her that Dances With Wolves could be secretly racist *until someone told her to believe it*. And now, 20 years later, she is still defending what she was told to believe as if it's Truth Incarnate. Classic. P.S. Don't take all of this seriously, Jeff, or see it as an attempt to draw you into the line of fire. This is just me having fun with Judy on the ropes and in Gotta-keep-defending-the-dumb-idea-because- I-can-never-be-seen-as-admitting-I-was-dumb mode. There is so little real content on FFL lately that forms of cheap amusement like this are one of the only things that keep me around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evan...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Well, [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0 But the world existed before man existed here and will continue to be long after we are gone , so the sutra must be referring to a change in one's experience of the world , rather than the world actually disappearing once everyone is enlightened as some have suggested. The sense of unity overshadows the world of name and form. I dont think its meant literally . http://www.healthandyoga.com/html/sutras/pt_yogasutras57.asp Krtartham prati nastam api anastam tad-anya-sadharanatvat (II.22). Krtartham = (one) whose purpose has been fulfilled; Prati = for/to; Nastam = destroyed/non-existent; Api = although; Anastam = not destroyed/existent; Tad = (then) that; Anya = to others; Sadharanatvat = on account of being common. Although it (the Seen, Prakrti) becomes non-existent for him (for Purusa, the Seer) whose purpose has been fulfilled, it continues to exist for others on account of being common to others. In previous sutra (Tad-artha eva drsyasyatma = The Seen exists for him), we saw that this creation (Prakrti) is for the experience and liberation of Purusa. What happens to it (Prakrti) once the Purusa gets liberated? Above sutra tells us that it continues to be there for others (who have yet to get liberation). Let us imagine, for understanding the above point, many persons are sleeping together in one room and having a dream which is common to all. Now, during the process of the dream, one of them wakes up. For him the dream ceases to be but for others it continues to be. Similarly the Seen (Prakrti) ceases to be for the Seer but continues to be for others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Morning of good to you! There is so much beauty in the world! Let's talk about that! The sun will be peeking soonenjoy -Meow ciao
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Erik wrote: [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0 You are correct, Sir. All of the Upanishad thinkers were transcendentalists. TMer's ascribe to the transcendtalist point-of-view. Transcendental means 'beyond' the senses - we are are referring to a state of consciousness, para', in Sanskrit, which is beyond the states of waking, sleeping, and dreaming. Ken Wilber postulates that there is a whole spectrum of consciousness. According to Gaudapadacharya, there is a fourth state of consciouness, called 'turiya' in Sanskrit. It is a state free from the binding influences of the 'gunas', the constituents of nature. Shankara says that the 'brahman' or transcendental state is attained through 'moksha', that is, *realized* by experiencing 'advaita', the absolute non-dual Reality. According to Maharishi Patanjali, this transcendental state can be experienced directly through a process of enstasis or mental introspection by following an eightfold path which includes meditation that is transcendental. According to Mahesh Yogi, this process is defined as the regular passing of the attention from one state of conciousness to another, subtler state; a process which enables transcendental consciousness to be maintained even during activity; first at a very subtle level, and then later, in all the gross activities...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
meow wrote: Morning of good to you! Good morning to you too! But what about the 'simple' questions that 'New Agers' avoid? If they are so simple, they would have been answered by now, I guess. There is so much beauty in the world! It should be easy to answer these questions even if you're not a 'New Ager', because all you have to do is apply some common sense, right? Let's talk about that! So, you want to avoid the simple questions. The sun will be peeking soonenjoy The world appears to be real and it seems like the the sun is 'peeking', but isn't the earth rotating? I guess the eyes play tricks on us sometimes. Maybe the sun just 'appears' to be peeking out from behind the earth. Things are NOT always exactly as they seem. For example, one person sees a 'sky-flower', but another sees clouds in the sky. The person who thought he saw the sky-flower realizes that it was just a mote in his eye. The sky-flower was not real, yet it was not unreal while he was experiencing it. It was like an illusion or a dream. In reality, there are no sky-flowers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Erik wrote: [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0 You are correct, Sir. All of the Upanishad thinkers were transcendentalists. TMer's ascribe to the transcendtalist point-of-view. Transcendental means 'beyond' the senses - we are are referring to a state of consciousness, para', in Sanskrit, which is beyond the states of waking, sleeping, and dreaming. Ken Wilber postulates that there is a whole spectrum of consciousness. According to Gaudapadacharya, there is a fourth state of consciouness, called 'turiya' in Sanskrit. It is a state free from the binding influences of the 'gunas', the constituents of nature. Shankara says that the 'brahman' or transcendental state is attained through 'moksha', that is, *realized* by experiencing 'advaita', the absolute non-dual Reality. According to Maharishi Patanjali, this transcendental state can be experienced directly through a process of enstasis or mental introspection by following an eightfold path which includes meditation that is transcendental. According to Mahesh Yogi, this process is defined as the regular passing of the attention from one state of conciousness to another, subtler state; a process which enables transcendental consciousness to be maintained even during activity; first at a very subtle level, and then later, in all the gross activities... Yeah, is true. My experience too. Nice summation. Jai Adi Shankara, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Nine (291 to go): --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Nope. As Barry knows, nobody has said that (in fact, they've told you specifically and explicitly to the contrary, three times now). The movie in question pretty much swept the Academy Awards, but for one person it was spoiled and turned into nothing more than racism because of a hairstyle. Clearly, the thing that creates reality is whether one's hair is kempt or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Well, [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Simple questions that New Agers avoid 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? jeff: The answers depend on whether I am in quantum mode, real life mode or God complex mode on any particular day . Do you believe there are such things as objects? So, you are avoiding a simple question. What happens when you kick a rock? Transcendentalists like the Adi Shankaracharya don't deny causation, they simply say that objects are not absolute - they are 'maya' - not real, yet not unreal either. Objects and events are real while they are being perceived, but in reality, they are appearances only, not absolutly real. An idealist would say that object changes by being perceived. Objects are not exactly as they seem - the very act of perception alters objects. Not everyone sees an object exactly the same way. If there is no consciousness to perceive, then the object doesn't exist. There is also the constructed character of knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
If thoughts don't create reality, what does? lurk: Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Judy: Nope. As Barry knows, nobody has said that (in fact, they've told you specifically and explicitly to the contrary, three times now). So, I wonder why nobody else gets this? If you were a captive living in the wilderness and you didn't wash or comb your hair for fifteen years, can you imagine what your hair would really look like? It would probably look like a total mess, a rat's nest - a lot messier than was depicted in the movie. If the producer wanted to make the movie look authentic, then her hair should have looked much worse than it did! It was a feeble attempt to make her look like a slut, very feeble. So feeble that it wasn't even believable. The movie in question pretty much swept the Academy Awards, but for one person it was spoiled and turned into nothing more than racism because of a hairstyle. Clearly, the thing that creates reality is whether one's hair is kempt or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evan...@... wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. When I ask them, they tend to either avoid the question or go off into some irrelevant rant and then re-confirming that thought creates reality principle without even addressing any of my points directly. How strange. I would have expected better from so called truth seekers. Nevertheless, here is the list. 1. If thoughts create reality, then how come we can't fly or walk through walls or move mountains with our thoughts? How come even if I believed 100 percent that I could pass through a solid wall, I'd still bump my head if I tried? 2. If thoughts create reality, then how come it's possible to trip or slip on banana peels? Wouldn't our assumption that it was safe to walk there create a trouble-free walk? 3. If thoughts create reality, then why did the Titanic sink when everyone thought it was unsinkable? 4. If thoughts create reality, then why are there surprises in life? Why do both optimists and pessimists experience events that turn out better or worse than they expected? Shouldn't they have manifested whatever they expected? 5. If thoughts create reality, then why do most things not go according to plan? By planning, wouldn't your thoughts generated during the plan create the reality in which things went exactly according to plan? 6. Is there any objective reality? If not, then how come you can bring a brown table into a room full of people, yet everyone will see the same thing, without you telling them what it is? And even if you told them it was a blue table, they'd still see a brown table. Doesn't that indicate that the brown table has an existence in objective reality? 7. To what degree do thoughts create reality? Are there any limits? If so, then why doesn't Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra define any? And aren't they misleading people into thinking that their thoughts are all powerful by not doing so? Or do they have a vested non-spiritual interest in promoting this concept? If there are no limits, then why can't you materialize and dematerialize matter in the physical universe like Q in Star Trek The Next Generation? 8. Another variant of this principle is that expectations create reality as well. In other words Expectations manifest. You attract what you think about. What you expect will be drawn to you. And what you fear also will manifest. Now if that's true, then how come most things don't go according to plan and how come expectations often fail? 9. If expectations create reality then how come we don't always get what we expect? How come there are so many let downs and disappointments in life? 10. Another variant of this is that you will manifest what you fear as Wayne Dyer like to put it. If that's so, why aren't children who are afraid of the boogie man at night don't actually get harmed or taken by one? And how come children afraid of monsters under their bed don't get eaten or killed by them? How come people who get scared after watching a horror movie don't manifest the creatures from the movie into real life? How come Dracula, Werewolves, Frankenstein, Jason or Freddy Krueger haven't manifested into reality yet? 11. If we manifest what we fear, then how come many of our fears don't come to pass and turn out to be just due to an overactive imagination? 12. How come when the year 2000 came, many feared that a Y2K bug might wreak havoc in society by causing many crucial computer systems to shut down, yet the scare turned out to be nothing? How come their collective fears didn't manifest? 13. Do you really believe that if you drank cyanide or muriatic acid and believed 100 percent that it was just plain water, that it wouldn't harm you? I hope not! 14. Since a lot of you folks also believe that how you see yourself and what you think you are will be how others see you and what others think you are, then do you really believe that if you walked into the Pentagon and believed 100 percent that you were the President of the United States, that everyone there would think that you are The President? And what if I believed that I was Superman or Batman? Would everyone believe it too? 15. And what if an ugly fat woman walks around in public like she is super hot and sexy, and believing as such in her mind 100 percent? Would everyone then think she was super hot and sexy and desire her? Or that she was delusional? And what about the people in the insane asylum who believe they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ? Does society accept their claims? Do they then become that and become the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. The movie in question pretty much swept the Academy Awards, but for one person it was spoiled and turned into nothing more than racism because of a hairstyle. Clearly, the thing that creates reality is whether one's hair is kempt or not. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evans60@ wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. When I ask them, they tend to either avoid the question or go off into some irrelevant rant and then re-confirming that thought creates reality principle without even addressing any of my points directly. How strange. I would have expected better from so called truth seekers. Nevertheless, here is the list. 1. If thoughts create reality, then how come we can't fly or walk through walls or move mountains with our thoughts? How come even if I believed 100 percent that I could pass through a solid wall, I'd still bump my head if I tried? 2. If thoughts create reality, then how come it's possible to trip or slip on banana peels? Wouldn't our assumption that it was safe to walk there create a trouble-free walk? 3. If thoughts create reality, then why did the Titanic sink when everyone thought it was unsinkable? 4. If thoughts create reality, then why are there surprises in life? Why do both optimists and pessimists experience events that turn out better or worse than they expected? Shouldn't they have manifested whatever they expected? 5. If thoughts create reality, then why do most things not go according to plan? By planning, wouldn't your thoughts generated during the plan create the reality in which things went exactly according to plan? 6. Is there any objective reality? If not, then how come you can bring a brown table into a room full of people, yet everyone will see the same thing, without you telling them what it is? And even if you told them it was a blue table, they'd still see a brown table. Doesn't that indicate that the brown table has an existence in objective reality? 7. To what degree do thoughts create reality? Are there any limits? If so, then why doesn't Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra define any? And aren't they misleading people into thinking that their thoughts are all powerful by not doing so? Or do they have a vested non-spiritual interest in promoting this concept? If there are no limits, then why can't you materialize and dematerialize matter in the physical universe like Q in Star Trek The Next Generation? 8. Another variant of this principle is that expectations create reality as well. In other words Expectations manifest. You attract what you think about. What you expect will be drawn to you. And what you fear also will manifest. Now if that's true, then how come most things don't go according to plan and how come expectations often fail? 9. If expectations create reality then how come we don't always get what we expect? How come there are so many let downs and disappointments in life? 10. Another variant of this is that you will manifest what you fear as Wayne Dyer like to put it. If that's so, why aren't children who are afraid of the boogie man at night don't actually get harmed or taken by one? And how come children afraid of monsters under their bed don't get eaten or killed by them? How come people who get scared after watching a horror movie don't manifest the creatures from the movie into real life? How come Dracula, Werewolves, Frankenstein, Jason or Freddy Krueger haven't manifested into reality yet? 11. If we manifest what we fear, then how come many of our fears don't come to pass and turn out to be just due to an overactive imagination? 12. How come when the year 2000 came, many feared that a Y2K bug might wreak havoc in society by causing many crucial computer systems to shut down, yet the scare turned out to be nothing? How come their collective fears didn't manifest? 13. Do you really believe that if you drank cyanide or muriatic acid and believed 100 percent that it was just plain water, that it wouldn't harm you? I hope not! 14. Since a lot of you folks also believe that how you see yourself and what you think you are will be how others see you and what others think you are, then do you really believe that if you walked into the Pentagon and believed 100 percent that you were the President of the United States, that everyone there would think that you are The President? And what if I believed
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evan...@... wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. Great find and great rant, Jeff. I wouldn't expect any answers from those on this forum who believe this. But I'll provide an answer from a more Buddhist perspective before having fun with dreaming one's reality in my own rant. :-) What the New Agers don't understand is that reality is a consensus phenomenon. Yeah, you might be trying to dream your reality, but reality is also trying to dream you. That is, every sentient being in the universe may be trying to dream its *own* reality into existence, but what appears and wins is the consensus, the Grand Total of all of the disparate dreams. New Agers seem to have mistaken a useful truism (What you focus on you become) for an ego- stoking and non-useful illusion (What I believe will happen happens). Every sentient being has the ability to *focus* on what he or she wants to, and therein lies some usefulness and power. If this ability did not exist, meditation could not exist; if the constant flow of thoughts was *all* of reality, one could never still them. Similarly, in the practice of mindfulness one learns to focus on that which is useful in terms of emotions and the ups and downs of consensus reality. But some take this ability and use it stupidly, choosing instead to focus on really dumb shit. For example, one *could* go to see a movie and, rather than enjoy it as the uplifting fable it is, choose to focus on and go all deja vu on some trauma from one's own early life in which one was told over and over again to go comb their unruly hair. A sane person would enjoy the movie. A less sane person might get so caught up in their own drama as to turn the uplifting film into a story about how unruly hair is really a form of subconscious bigotry, being used to degrade and vilify the very people the movie is...uh...about and whose lifestyle it celebrates. In such a case, one could say that the insane movie viewer had *indeed* created their own reality by ignoring the Big Picture and focusing on a nit and picking at it. A more sane person can enjoy and find beauty even in a film (or a reality) that is less beau- tiful or enjoyable. That's the magic of What you focus on you become, or mindfulness. One does *not* have to fall prey to one's samskaras and re-run the same petty ego-dramas over and over in one's head forever; at any point one can choose to focus on something else. If one were to buy into the logic that allowing an actress to use her own judgment and wear her hair the way she thinks best suits her character is in reality an attempt to denigrate and cast aspersions on lesser Native Americans by an unfeeling director, what are Maharishi's Raja costumes? I mean, the man forced his followers to dress up in silly costumes *that cannot be found in Indian history*. He decreed that all of these no-caste untouchables (in the Indian caste system he believed in as a reflection of the Laws Of Nature or God's will) had to not only wear such silly costumes but prance around in them pretending to be kings of an imaginary country. What act in history has *ever* been more degrading to the people forced to act it out than that? It could be viewed as a form of Look what a smart Indian like myself can make these stupid, no-caste Westerners do, *while paying me a million dollars* for the privilege of doing it to them? In a very real sense, if Mary McDonnell's hairstyle in Dances With Wolves can be seen as an attempt to denigrate Native Americans, I don't see how Maharishi playing dress-up with his Rajas can be seen as anything *but* an attempt to denigrate them, and Westerners in general. The whole scene just *screams* Look at what a smart Indian like myself can make these retarded no-caste Westerners do! Just having fun with the concept, Jeff. I doubt that Maharishi ever *consciously* set out to make his followers look like idiots. It was more subconscious and insidious, like Kevin Costner's real moti- vation for making Mary McDonnell look like a slattern in Dances With Wolves was subconscious. :-) My point is that whatever case one might make for Maharishi being a Class A Vedic Supremacy Bigot, one does not have to place one's focus there. One *could* focus instead on all the millions of people he helped by using the TMO's millions to teach TM cheaply or for free everywhere. Instead of, say, pissing his last years away extorting even more money from them and playing dress-up with a bunch of Ken and Barbie dolls. Oh. Never mind. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evans60@ wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. Great find and great rant, Jeff. I wouldn't expect any answers from those on this forum who believe this. But I'll provide an answer from a more Buddhist perspective before having fun with dreaming one's reality in my own rant. :-) What the New Agers don't understand is that reality is a consensus phenomenon. Yeah, you might be trying to dream your reality, but reality is also trying to dream you. That is, every sentient being in the universe may be trying to dream its *own* reality into existence, but what appears and wins is the consensus, the Grand Total of all of the disparate dreams. New Agers seem to have mistaken a useful truism (What you focus on you become) for an ego- stoking and non-useful illusion (What I believe will happen happens). Every sentient being has the ability to *focus* on what he or she wants to, and therein lies some usefulness and power. If this ability did not exist, meditation could not exist; if the constant flow of thoughts was *all* of reality, one could never still them. Similarly, in the practice of mindfulness one learns to focus on that which is useful in terms of emotions and the ups and downs of consensus reality. But some take this ability and use it stupidly, choosing instead to focus on really dumb shit. For example, one *could* go to see a movie and, rather than enjoy it as the uplifting fable it is, choose to focus on and go all deja vu on some trauma from one's own early life in which one was told over and over again to go comb their unruly hair. A sane person would enjoy the movie. A less sane person might get so caught up in their own drama as to turn the uplifting film into a story about how unruly hair is really a form of subconscious bigotry, being used to degrade and vilify the very people the movie is...uh...about and whose lifestyle it celebrates. In such a case, one could say that the insane movie viewer had *indeed* created their own reality by ignoring the Big Picture and focusing on a nit and picking at it. A more sane person can enjoy and find beauty even in a film (or a reality) that is less beau- tiful or enjoyable. That's the magic of What you focus on you become, or mindfulness. One does *not* have to fall prey to one's samskaras and re-run the same petty ego-dramas over and over in one's head forever; at any point one can choose to focus on something else. If one were to buy into the logic that allowing an actress to use her own judgment and wear her hair the way she thinks best suits her character is in reality an attempt to denigrate and cast aspersions on lesser Native Americans by an unfeeling director, what are Maharishi's Raja costumes? I mean, the man forced his followers to dress up in silly costumes *that cannot be found in Indian history*. He decreed that all of these no-caste untouchables (in the Indian caste system he believed in as a reflection of the Laws Of Nature or God's will) had to not only wear such silly costumes but prance around in them pretending to be kings of an imaginary country. What act in history has *ever* been more degrading to the people forced to act it out than that? It could be viewed as a form of Look what a smart Indian like myself can make these stupid, no-caste Westerners do, *while paying me a million dollars* for the privilege of doing it to them? In a very real sense, if Mary McDonnell's hairstyle in Dances With Wolves can be seen as an attempt to denigrate Native Americans, I don't see how Maharishi playing dress-up with his Rajas can be seen as anything *but* an attempt to denigrate them, and Westerners in general. The whole scene just *screams* Look at what a smart Indian like myself can make these retarded no-caste Westerners do! Just having fun with the concept, Jeff. I doubt that Maharishi ever *consciously* set out to make his followers look like idiots. It was more subconscious and insidious, like Kevin Costner's real moti- vation for making Mary McDonnell look like a slattern in Dances With Wolves was subconscious. :-) My point is that whatever case one might make for Maharishi being a Class A Vedic Supremacy Bigot, one does not have to place one's focus there. One *could* focus instead on all the millions of people he helped by using the TMO's millions to teach TM cheaply or for free everywhere. Instead of, say, pissing his last years away extorting even more money from them and playing dress-up with a bunch of Ken and Barbie dolls. Oh. Never mind. :-) Not sure I follow your logical sequence but
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evan...@... wrote: Not sure I follow your logical sequence but hey its all about creating your own reality isnt it. My logical sequence was merely a parody of Judy's. I just *love* pushing her buttons and then sitting back and watching her react and try to win some argument that is one only in her mind. The whole Dances With Nitpicks thread, with her making 20+ posts simply because I corrected her by pointing out that Mary McDonnell made the decision to wear her hair loose rather than braided has been really, really FUN to watch. BTW When I went to see Dances with Wolves it was a first date with a pretty cute girl called Rosie ( long straight black hair not tied back , definite slattern ). She confessed to me afterwards that she had really needed to pee most of the film but was too embarassed to get up and visit the ladies room, and was actually in quite a bit of pain for most of it ! Just wanted to share with you. Good to know that there are other slattern-lovers out there. :-) In retrospect, the thing I found funniest about the whole Dances With Wolves thang was *not* that Judy failed to address the fact that there is *not a single scene in the film* that portrays Mary McDonnell's hair as dirty or matted the way she claimed it was, but the fact that this whole insane theory of hers *never even occurred to her* until her sister mentioned it. Isn't that classic? On the one hand, it supports my theory that the whole slattern thing is the result of some childhood trauma, in that her sister was *also* told to Go comb your hair, and probably by the same petty tyrant. On the other, it's one of the best examples *ever* of Judy BELIEVING WHAT SOMEONE TOLD HER TO BELIEVE. By her own admission, it never occurred to her that Dances With Wolves could be secretly racist *until someone told her to believe it*. And now, 20 years later, she is still defending what she was told to believe as if it's Truth Incarnate. Classic. P.S. Don't take all of this seriously, Jeff, or see it as an attempt to draw you into the line of fire. This is just me having fun with Judy on the ropes and in Gotta-keep-defending-the-dumb-idea-because- I-can-never-be-seen-as-admitting-I-was-dumb mode. There is so little real content on FFL lately that forms of cheap amusement like this are one of the only things that keep me around.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: My point is that whatever case one might make for Maharishi being a Class A Vedic Supremacy Bigot, one does not have to place one's focus there. One *could* focus instead on all the millions of people he helped by using the TMO's millions to teach TM cheaply or for free everywhere. Oh. Never mind. :-) Instead the Turqey choose to continue to focus his inner demons on Maharishi who's Movement he has not been affiliated with for more than 30 years, day after day, year after year here on FFL. Go figure. I mean, go figure !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? 2. Can objects endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone? 3. Does knowing an object create them? 4. If objects have properties, do they derive their existence or nature from the knower? 5. Does knowledge of objects changes their nature? 5. Do we experience objects directly or is there something in between them and our knowledge of them? 6. Do we experience objects exactly as they are or is there some distortion by any intervening medium? 7. Since objects are public, can they be known by more than one person and perceived exactly the same way? 8. Do we perceive objects exactly as they are? Read more: From: Willytex Subject: Things Fall Down Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 19, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/y95s9tl
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
What the New Agers don't understand is that reality is a consensus phenomenon. So, you're thinking that when we see an object, we experience it *exactly* like everyone else experiences it? Or, is the object changed or altered in some way the act of perception? For example, I see a thief at night, but my neighbor see a fence post. Yeah, you might be trying to dream your reality, but reality is also trying to dream you. So, you're thinking that things and events are not real, that they are projections, illusions, like those seen in a dream? snip New Agers seem to have mistaken a useful truism (What you focus on you become) for an ego-stoking and non-useful illusion (What I believe will happen happens). So, you're thinking that objects *do not* derive their existence or nature from the knower? And that knowledge of an object *does not* change their nature? Similarly, in the practice of mindfulness one learns to focus on that which is useful in terms of emotions and the ups and downs of consensus reality... Unfortunately, this isn't the definition of 'mindfullness' according to Buddhist teachers. Mindfullness isn't about concentrating on any emotions or focusing on any 'ups and downs'. Mindfullness isn't based on mood-making or any kind of striving. It is a practice that does not require any set of beliefs, such as belief in an individual soul-monad. All you have to do in practicing Buddhist mindfullness is to *sit*, that's all - in Buddhist mindfullness practice, this 'just sitting' IS the enlightened state. That's why, although the Buddha reached enlightenment in 483 BC, he still meditated until he was over eighty years old. Mindfulness practice is simple and completely feasible. Just by sitting and doing nothing, we are doing a tremendous amount. 'How to do Mindfulness Meditation' http://tinyurl.com/y97gmxf snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
When I went to see Dances with Wolves it was a first date with a pretty cute girl called Rosie (long straight black hair not tied back, definite slattern)... I'm not convinced that it's a good thing to be calling your date a slut - that doesn't say much about yourself, does it, jeff? slattern [?slæt?n] n a slovenly woman or girl; slut [probably from slattering, from dialect slatter to slop; perhaps from Scandinavian; compare Old Norse sletta to slap] slatternly adj slatternliness n http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slattern
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
TurquoiseB wrote: Good to know that there are other slattern-lovers out there... But, I'm not sure how posting a fake photo of Judy is going to prove you are winning any debates, Turq. I guess you got your own reasons why you think that would prove that Judy is a 'slattern', but the photo was obviously a fake. slattern; Pronunciation: \?sla-t?rn\ Function: noun Etymology: probably from German schlottern to hang loosely, slouch; akin to Dutch slodderen to hang loosely, slodder slut: an untidy slovenly woman; also: slut, prostitute... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/SLATTERN
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? Yes. 2. Can objects endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone? Yes. 3. Does knowing an object create them? No. 4. If objects have properties, do they derive their existence or nature from the knower? No. 5. Does knowledge of objects changes their nature? No. 5. Do we experience objects directly or is there something in between them and our knowledge of them? No and yes. 6. Do we experience objects exactly as they are or is there some distortion by any intervening medium? You've just asked this. 7. Since objects are public, can they be known by more than one person and perceived exactly the same way? Yes and maybe. 8. Do we perceive objects exactly as they are? Three times?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evan...@... wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. When I ask them, they tend to either avoid the question or go off into some irrelevant rant and then re-confirming that thought creates reality principle without even addressing any of my points directly. How strange. I would have expected better from so called truth seekers. Nevertheless, here is the list. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Why doesn't he just kick a rock? After all, that was how Samuel Johnson settled the issue more than 200 years ago.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? Hugo: Yes. Apparently you are somewhat of a naive realist, Hugo and partly a materialist, but you don't seem to agree with the idealist view. Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism However, the moment a naive realist reflects upon his view he is no longer completely naive! The questions are really a series of a straw men, set up by epistemologists to represent us in our unreflective moments. This straw man may not be quite like any of us, for most of us have reflected somewhat. Yet, we can recognize that it represents a view we hold much of the time. Six statements summarize the naive realist: 1. Objects which are known exist independently of their being known. They can endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone. Knowing the objects does not create them. 2. Objects have qualities, or, if one prefers, properties, characteristics, or attributes, which are parts of the objects. As qualities of objects, they do not derive their exist- ence or nature from the knower. 3. Objects, including their qualities, are not affected merely by being known. Knowledge of objects in no way changes their nature. 4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem. Or, as we sometimes say, appearances are realities. What seems obviously so is so. 5. Objects are known directly; that is, there is nothing between them and our knowledge of them. They occur in our experience. We experience them exactly as they are without distortion by any intervening medium. 6. Objects are public; that is, they can be known by more than one person. Several people can gee the same object and see it exactly as it is. From: Willytex Subject: Things Fall Down Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 19, 2002
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
I would have expected better from so called truth seekers. Nevertheless, here is the list.. Judy: Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Why doesn't he just kick a rock? After all, that was how Samuel Johnson settled the issue more than 200 years ago. Things fall down, but things are *not* exactly as they seem. There is something in-between the rock and it being percieved. Also, we don't see things as wholes, only parts of wholes. Are appearances realities? Or, is what seems obviously so, really so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? Hugo: Yes. Apparently you are somewhat of a naive realist, Hugo and partly a materialist, but you don't seem to agree with the idealist view. That's coz it's rubbish. Idealism is the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external world is said to have a so-called absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness... See! Who in their right mind would believe a load of jibber-jabber like that? I'm actually a Hugoist: Whatever seems the most likely explanation given what we appear to be and perceive is most likely to be correct otherwise a lot of work is being done by someone or something to kid us into believing reality is different. Anyone who tries to tell you that the world isn't more or less how it appears and can be changed by the mind is trying to sell you something. Hugoists are also rather lazy and can't be bothered to find out if this philosophical position has been claimed and labelled by someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Apparently you are somewhat of a naive realist, Hugo and partly a materialist, I would say mostly materialist but I dislike the naive tag as it implies that I just accept what comes into through my eyes and ears without me ever pondering what reality and consciousness really are. I rarely think about anything else which is a weird idea in itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: snip I'm actually a Hugoist: Whatever seems the most likely explanation given what we appear to be and perceive is most likely to be correct otherwise a lot of work is being done by someone or something to kid us into believing reality is different. What I've always found interesting is that there's no way to prove materialism, and no way to disprove idealism. Or to put it another way, materialism is in theory falsifiable, whereas idealism is eminently provable. Of course that doesn't mean idealism trumps materialism (so far, at any rate). It's just that every one of materialism's proofs of How Things Are depends on a premise that is itself unprovable, a premise that could be knocked into a cocked hat with one single conclusive demonstration of idealism. Seems counterintuitive somehow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? 2. Can objects endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone? 3. Does knowing an object create them? 4. If objects have properties, do they derive their existence or nature from the knower? 5. Does knowledge of objects changes their nature? 5. Do we experience objects directly or is there something in between them and our knowledge of them? 6. Do we experience objects exactly as they are or is there some distortion by any intervening medium? 7. Since objects are public, can they be known by more than one person and perceived exactly the same way? 8. Do we perceive objects exactly as they are? Read more: From: Willytex Subject: Things Fall Down Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 19, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/y95s9tl The answers depend on whether I am in quantum mode, real life mode or God complex mode on any particular day . Do you believe there are such things as objects ?
