Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
On 7/11/2014 6:45 AM, j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Well, of course it's the answer... in some corner of the infinite multiverse. What is the question? The question is why we have not so far detected any intelligent extraterrestrial life? What if you woke up in the morning and found out that we had discovered intelligent life on another planet? What would you do? /Where is everybody?/ - Enrico Fermi 'The Fermi Paradox' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wait-but-why/the-fermi-paradox_b_5489415.html ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Reset
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
We are still technologically primitive. We don't even have a reasonable sub-light drive (say 10% of light-speed) to map out our local system. The more interesting question is: Have they detected us and what are they going to do about it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
From: emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com We are still technologically primitive. We don't even have a reasonable sub-light drive (say 10% of light-speed) to map out our local system. The more interesting question is: Have they detected us and what are they going to do about it? From what I hear, they would already have done it, except that the politically-correct politician-aliens in their sector of the galaxy recently outlawed the bug spray they were going to use on us, for ecological reasons. They're currently working on a replacement that leaves the cool animals like dolphins and bunnies and armadillos while eliminating the humans, and amusing themselves until it gets approved by drawing meaningless pictures in corn fields, and then laughing their asses off watching us trying to project meaning onto them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : We are still technologically primitive. We don't even have a reasonable sub-light drive (say 10% of light-speed) to map out our local system. The more interesting question is: Have they detected us and what are they going to do about it? So far they've lied about having come from Venus, made some pretty shapes in wheat fields and stuck a probe up Whitley Streibers bottom. What they hope to gain from this is a mystery at the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
Why that's no lie! Come from Venus means microbes born of a Vagina. Witney's bottom means microbes born from Uranus. Proly, in reality, the aliens are massively formless, circulating swarms of Microbiomes - new Mahayana Buddhas looking for suffering microbes to save. Got sufferings?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
That's what makes 'em so damned dangerous, especially if they decide to take a liking to probing our buttocks... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : We are still technologically primitive. We don't even have a reasonable sub-light drive (say 10% of light-speed) to map out our local system. The more interesting question is: Have they detected us and what are they going to do about it? So far they've lied about having come from Venus, made some pretty shapes in wheat fields and stuck a probe up Whitley Streibers bottom. What they hope to gain from this is a mystery at the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
Well, of course it's the answer... in some corner of the infinite multiverse. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
Déja vu all over again... From: j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer? Well, of course it's the answer... in some corner of the infinite multiverse. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Déja vu all over again... Enrico Fermi didn't take this into account anyway From: j_alexander_stanley@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer? Well, of course it's the answer... in some corner of the infinite multiverse. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
[FairfieldLife] Re: vark.com answer system
I had missed this article. Thanks for posting. I love the way the internet taps a fundamental human impulse to share information. (The down side being, of course, that said info is often wrong, but let's not spoil my expansive mood by dwelling on such shortcomings.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: The trouble w/yahoo answers is that many incompetent people, 12 yr old kids mainly it seems, will answer and rarely have anything useful to say -- vark.com is supposed to be more useful: http://vark.com/ from the NYT tech guy: Got a Burning Question? Ask the Net By DAVID POGUE There's plenty of nastiness on the Internet--mean stuff, dirty stuff, snarky stuff--but there's also an incredible amount of kindness and support to be found. Next time you're looking for something wildly entertaining and enlightening to do online, check out a site like answers.yahoo.com http://answers.yahoo.com/ or answerbag.com http://www.answerbag.com/ On these sites, you can pose a question--any question at all--and crowdsource the answer. You watch and wait as the vast masses chime in with their opinions on your questions. (Currently on the Yahoo Answers home page: What's the best brand of handball? Baby waking up often. Please help me? Is it true that if you have alopecia, you have to shave your head? And so on.) There are a few problems with the Yahoo/Answerbag method, though. First of all, they're so scattershot. You post your question, and you just hope that someone who knows the answer might stumble upon it. There's no attempt to get your question to precisely the *right* person. Second, it's public. Obviously, you can use a cryptic login name, but still--your question, which might be personal or embarrassing--is out there for all to see. It's just somehow a little creepy. Until recently, I'd been relying on Twitter for all my obscure-question-answering needs. Often I'd ask for help on some tweaky Photoshop filter setting or a detail of some 1950's Broadway show--and sure enough, someone or other would always know the answer. But often, I'd get 60 replies, meaning I'd wasted the time of 59 people--and this technique doesn't work at all if you don't have a lot of followers. Last week, I stumbled upon a new, better way to harness the Net for answers: Vark.com http://vark.com/ You send your question to Aardvark (the full name of the service) using a chat program like Google Talk/Gmail Chat, AIM, MSN or Yahoo Messenger (an iPhone app is coming soon), where you've added Aardvark as a buddy. You can also send a question by e-mail to aardv...@... or on Twitter. At the moment, you have to have a Facebook account before you can get started; that's how Aardvark gets its initial idea of your social network. The service makes no attempt to blanket the Internet with your question. In fact, it forwards your question only to people who have specifically declared themselves to have expertise on your subject--and, furthermore, only people who are already in your online social circle. If there's nobody with expertise among that group, Aardvark extends its search to friends *of* your friends, and so on. Trust me, it works; I've never gotten a bad answer. How does it choose who gets your question? It factors in related topics in peoples' profiles, how you're connected to people, who you trust about related topics, your history of training Aardvark, people who share your favorites (for taste-related questions), people in the right location (for location-related questions), and other mysterious factors. I've used Aardvark several times apiece for professional and personal queries, and I've been astounded by its utility every time. The answers are on my screen between 60 seconds and five minutes after I've asked them: private, targeted, and generally accurate. When I was working on a column about U.S. cellphone ripoffs, I asked: In Europe, are both senders and receivers of text messages and phone calls billed for each message? Ding! Paul from Fleetwood, England responded: Depends what you mean: country to country or domestic? I responded: I was thinking domestic. His answer: Domestically, it is only the send who pays for both texts and calls. This is the case in all EU countries. I asked: My Honda Fit got a pea-sized windshield ding from a pebble. Since it's not in my line of vision, is this something I need to get fixed (because it might grow or something)? Ding! In two minutes, there was a reply from Andrew: They tend not to grow. But watch it closely, as what might happen (worst case) is that it will slowly 'spider' out. But usually not. You can follow up with a respondent, which I did. I asked him what made him qualified to answer my question. He told me: I've just always been a real car enthusiast since I was a kid, and I wrote articles for a Honda owners' club newsletter in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Since now John (jr_esq) has had ample opportunity to read my post announcing my test of astrology and Jyotish and has chosen instead to use Jyotish to reveal things about David Carradine that anyone reading a newspaper already knows :-), That isn't what he did. You have it exactly backwards. What he did was, he looked at the things we already know, then looked at Carradine's chart to see if he could find indications of these things. Working backward this way is a standard exercise that astrologers perform in order to *learn*. This is a procedure that's followed in many fields to increase the ability to make a correct prediction from current data in the future. Debunking via misrepresentation (i.e., creating straw men to attack) suggests a lack of confidence in one's ability to make a coherent argument based on facts and logic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:27 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: OK, there *was* a bit of a cheat in this test. But only a bit of one. Just a bit of a cheat, Barry? LOL... The person never existed! But it was your test, so you get to make up the rules. But I don't think that was playing fair. JMO. I thought it was a fascinating test when Dorothy Dunnett posed it. So did she, when it turns out that the original astrologer came up with inter- pretations of the chart of a fictional character based on his fictional birth date that matched fairly well the description of him in over 3000 pages of novels. *And*, the two people who gave the test here a try did pretty well, too. Go figure. The person whose birth data was given was the subject of a six-volume series of books by the person I consider the greatest writer of the English language in the 20th century. He was fictional. *However*, Francis Crawford, Earl of Lymond was also one of the most meticulously imagined and researched characters in the history of literature. His creator was Dorothy Dunnett, considered by many the greatest writer in Scottish history. You probably have never heard of her, I've heard of her. other than in mentions of her by me on this forum. The reason is that she wrote historical fiction, which is not everyone's cuppa tea. I love hysterical fiction... But Dorothy wrote historical fiction with a precision and with a level of due diligence that most historians have never achieved. Dorothy never fudged anything having to do with the periods of time and the characters -- both real and imagined -- she wrote about. She would typically spend a minimum of a year researching the place and the time she was to write about, reading literally hundreds of books about it, going there personally to get the vibe of the place and its people, thoroughly immersing herself in the place and the time, and then starting to write. She wrote about Lymond for 15 years, in a six- volume set of novels known as The Lymond Chronicles. If anyone on earth can be said to have had a real existence, it is someone who has thus been focused on by a great writer so intently, and for so long. Doesn't absolve you! Try again, this time with someone who actually existed. I had no interest in testing astrology per se. I was merely doing this for fun, as was Dorothy Dunnett. If it proved anything, it is that people *can* make intuitive insights that have some degree of accuracy about a person -- real or fictional -- based on nothing more than their birth data. I've posted here before of what would be a *real* test of astrology, and so far all of the astrology/Jyotish buffs have failed to take me up on it. All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, *verifiable* prediction about the near future, with absolutely no bullshit vague language in the prediction, and then see if it comes true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it seems that's too much to ask of those who believe in astrology and Jyotish.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The answer to the astrology/Jyotish test
TurquoiseB wrote: All they'd have to do is make a *concrete*, *verifiable* prediction about the near future, with absolutely no bullshit vague language in the prediction, and then see if it comes true. If it did, I'd be impressed. But it seems that's too much to ask of those who believe in astrology and Jyotish. You will have a major life change in the next two years. ;-) However, you misunderstand that astrology is not about concrete black and white predictions. It is a weather report of the propensity for an event. However it is far better than a WAG (Wild Ass Guess). As I have said before there is something too astrology. It is not a junk science. The criticism of it by people who have never tried to learn it is about like villagers say in the Amazon where they've never seen a satellite phone and a visitor has one and they start taking about the crazy man talking to a box. There is a wide gap in knowledge. With the proper data I've never seen a chart fail to disclose the career path that a person took or will take. Many people go to astrologers to actually find if they are on the right career path. I've never seen a chart with proper data fail why the person was having difficulty in life with marriage or relationships. Often when someone asks why they are going through such a bad time one can about guess that one of the lunar nodes in transit is causing the problem. You can assure them when it will go away and it does. What you can't do is look at an ephemeris and see the likely hood of some precise event happening. You have to have a subject to see that. It can be a person or entity such as a country. One thing you will have a really difficult time with is that many astrologers, particularly western astrologers, have big egos. You can imagine if they get predictions right time after time without a strong spiritual base the ego gets bloated. I've seen this with jyotishis too but mainly ones from the west who have also a background in western astrology and not a strong spiritual base. I once attended an event with both western and eastern astrologers. Many of the western astrologers reminded me of Amway salesmen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart Barry posted this only a little over 24 hours since he first proposed the test. And he said he'd wait until 7:00 p.m. EST to post the answer. For all he knew, John was busy working on it, planning to post his results by Barry's original deadline. He's out for revenge right now and is proposing another test. Why would anyone want to participate in such a setup? JohnR refuses to let this drop. OK, his call. See below. By the way, go back and look at the original post. I said quite clearly that the deadline for submissions to the test was 7:00 pm *my* time, 12:00 Noon Fairfield time. I'll wait for the apology. Now here's the post I wrote in response to JohnR's previous rant, but which I promised myself not to post unless he continued with this crap. Some people just don't know when they've embarrassed themselves enough. So be it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Hey, RaunchD Barry has just confirmed in more explicit words what he thought of my comment to do.reflex in his private email to me. John, My email to you was not just sent, it was sent Thursday, in an attempt to 1) not waste a post on you, and 2) spare you airing your lack of courage and principles in public. You have chosen to make it public. So be it. This message will end my participation in this exchange with you unless you are fool- ish enough to prolong it. I was rather surprised that he reacted with such venom in his last post. It is revealing as to how much his animosity can reach when anyone mentions anything about vedic sciences or any gurus from that tradition. This is the They aren't really criticizing me, they are criticizing my beliefs...what they really hate is what I believe in argument that True Believers trot out over and over. Please note that this is a typical and well- documented cult tactic used to make a criticism of a *particular individual* seem as if it's really a criticism of the group the cultist is attempting to appeal to and gain sympathy from. So allow me to clarify -- I am NOT criticizing the Vedas by calling you a low-life scumbag. I am calling YOU in particular a low-life scumbag because of YOUR behavior. Please also notice that what you fail to address in any way IS that behavior -- your recent attempt to claim that you knew the answer to my test, even though you failed to post such an answer to the group. I stand by what I said in my reply to do.rflex. First, I consider you *personally* a low-life scumbag for attempting to claim that you knew the answer to a test that you were unwilling to take in public, where the accuracy of your answer could have been verified by readers of this forum. Next, I suggest that you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1) your *own* faith in Jyotish is so shaky that you are afraid to put it to the test, 2) that you are seemingly willing to make unsubstantiated claims about what you knew after the fact in an attempt to hide your cowardice, and 3) that you are now resorting to classic cult manipulation techniques to pretend that I'm criticizing vedic science and not you. John, all you had to do to make your cowardice less obvious was shut the fuck up and live with it. Instead, you decided to compound it by pull- ing this stunt. THAT is what makes you a low-life scumbag in my book. Me saying this about you *personally* has nothing to do with my opinion of Jyotish or the so-called vedic sciences. However, if you are presenting yourself as a representative of these vedic sciences and as an example of what studying them produces, then I suggest that the quality of the fruit reveals a lot about the tree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR John, what specifically did you know -before- Barry typed the email to the moderators? Ask Barry. He knows it and he can confirm it. John in Brazil, I really, really hate to use up my last post of the week dealing with horseshit like this, but since JohnR has chosen to act like a low-life scumbag, I must. I have no earthly idea what JohnR is talking about. What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. I offered him an opportunity to prove or disprove his contention that Jyotish is a science and he replied once and *only* once to this group, coming up with excuses for why he probably wouldn't participate in my test, and then ending by saying that he might post to the group if he saw some- thing interesting in the chart. He never made such a post. He never sent anything to me in email. Basically, as far as I can tell, what he is doing now is lying. Worse, he's lying in the same way that Lou Valentino lies. Lou has a proven history of making predictions on his website and claiming that they are 85% accurate and then going back later and 1) EDITING the previous predictions to take out the things that were incorrect, and 2) DELETING all the old predictions so that no one can check up on his claims of accuracy. In other words, Lou is a charlatan. I was willing to give JohnR a break and suggest only that he had no balls for not participating in my little test. That would have been an improvement over what he's trying to do now. Now he's *claiming* that he knew something. Well, if he really knew it, he was afraid to post it to the group, wasn't he. Bottom line of that is that he has no balls. If he *didn't* know anything, and is now claiming to have only to protect his own rep as a Jyotishi and Jyotish itself, again there is the same bottom line -- no balls. I really did give the guy a chance. And this is what he does with it. I think that the conclusion that any thinking person should draw from this is that Jyotish is a crock of shit *and* that its practitioners like JohnR *know* that it's a crock of shit. In other words, they are charlatans. If JohnR feels differently, and cares to dispute this, there is only one way to do so -- put his predictions to the test. Allow me or someone else to propose another blind test and this time follow through with it and post his analysis of the chart in question. That's what a person who had balls would do. I expect JohnR to whine and lie instead. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Sorry for doubting you, but we haven't been on friendly terms from the git-go. I admire your writing abilities minus the nasty crap and that's the best compliment I can muster for today. I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Nice post Raunchy. I appreciate any attempt by the interesting writers in this group to build bridges. I also think that such a test would be interesting and even without being definitive, it would provoke plenty of worthwhile thought on both sides of the belief fence. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Sorry for doubting you, but we haven't been on friendly terms from the git-go. I admire your writing abilities minus the nasty crap and that's the best compliment I can muster for today. I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:50 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Sorry for doubting you, but we haven't been on friendly terms from the git-go. I admire your writing abilities minus the nasty crap and that's the best compliment I can muster for today. I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot. I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non- believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. Yogi Karvay asked for no birth data. He places his attention on you, goes into samadhi and as he comes in and out of his transcendence, he reads off all the planets, to the degree, as the actually appeared in the sky and gives your exact birth date and time without ever knowing anything about you. I know because not only has he done mine, he's also done friends of mine. Spot on every time. He predicted Nehru's life when he was in jail and it all turned out as predicted. And Nehru hated astrologers. Depending on special circumstances he may or may not to do detailed predictions. But suffice to say, his descriptions of my life literally took my breath away. After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@... wrote: Nice post Raunchy. I appreciate any attempt by the interesting writers in this group to build bridges. I also think that such a test would be interesting and even without being definitive, it would provoke plenty of worthwhile thought on both sides of the belief fence. Warm Fuzzies to you as well, Curtis. Happy New Year.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Is there any reason jyotish wouldn't work for a dog? Mine seems to pick a different coloured ball for me to throw from her vast collection every day, maybe it's all governed by the transits of mercury or something. I should draw up a graph of what she chooses and see if a pattern emerges. But I'm teasing of course I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. so would I. And, as I might have mentioned, am always ready to take part. Someone will pick up the gauntlet. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot. I would say they work in exactly the same way and the more into it you are the more likely you will create what the reading fortells. I think we all create in our lives what we subconsciously expect to happen, perhaps a reading would let someone think in a different way about the choices they face. But then the TMO claims to be able to see returning karma in your chart and precribe you a very expensive yagya to cure it. This is something I'd like to see a proper test of as it's a bold claim and very lucrative. I think it's complete nonsense at worst and a placebo at best.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:50 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Sorry for doubting you, but we haven't been on friendly terms from the git-go. I admire your writing abilities minus the nasty crap and that's the best compliment I can muster for today. I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot. I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non- believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. Yogi Karvay asked for no birth data. He places his attention on you, goes into samadhi and as he comes in and out of his transcendence, he reads off all the planets, to the degree, as the actually appeared in the sky and gives your exact birth date and time without ever knowing anything about you. I know because not only has he done mine, he's also done friends of mine. Spot on every time. He predicted Nehru's life when he was in jail and it all turned out as predicted. And Nehru hated astrologers. Depending on special circumstances he may or may not to do detailed predictions. But suffice to say, his descriptions of my life literally took my breath away. After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. I'm game, how do we go about meeting the man?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
snip I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non- believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. I did a series of readings from some Maharishi Joitish guys as well as Chakrapani back in the day. They were cold readers mostly, giving you'll be rich someday predictions. So what does this guy charge? I would love to get my lack of belief shaken if it didn't cost too much. His website is down www.UniversalSociety.org snip After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. Could you do it for us? Do you have the sidhi? I think it is cool that you found someone you were impressed with and would be interested in reading about him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Hugo wrote: I'm game, how do we go about meeting the man? Sign up for his email announcement list. If you're going to India I'd try to contact the moderator. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yogi_Karve/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Hugo wrote: I'm game, how do we go about meeting the man? Sign up for his email announcement list. If you're going to India I'd try to contact the moderator. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yogi_Karve/ We've been here before Vaj, this site is defunct but I'm still a member from the last time the great FFL Jyotish debate occured. Any newer contact details, the last message on that sirte was in 2004. I'd love to have my view of everything overturned but it would have to be good, if the guy talks to you first there could be all sorts of cold reading going on. Or if you have to fill out any forms at all I'de be suspicious. So how does he actually do it? Does he have an open door so I could just walk in?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:16 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non- believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. I did a series of readings from some Maharishi Joitish guys as well as Chakrapani back in the day. They were cold readers mostly, giving you'll be rich someday predictions. So what does this guy charge? I would love to get my lack of belief shaken if it didn't cost too much. His website is down www.UniversalSociety.org Yeah I had a Chakrapani reading and others as well. It was like listening to the karmic weather. My take on these standard jyotishis for lack of a better word is that they rely on predictive rules from previous Yogi Karvay's who wrote down their insights based on their omniscience. These guys are just following the rules they learned from these systems and throwing in a little bit of intuition. Standard Parasara-style jyotish: learning and memorizing the rules. Same with the Surya Samhita Jyotishis, which are often written on palms leaves and hundreds of years old: these had to be written by someone who was omniscient in some way, there's simply no way around it. How else could they just know these things about you? I certainly can't think of a way. In one case a female friend, alleged to be a reincarnation of a Hindu saint, but an American, went to a Surya Samhita reader. After going thru the various criteria, he arrived at her leaf. Now she had presented with her Swami name and no longer used her birth name. The leaf had her name in English on it. I shit you not. How is that possible? snip After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. Could you do it for us? Do you have the sidhi? I think it is cool that you found someone you were impressed with and would be interested in reading about him. I have not practiced the sadhana and in fact I didn't even want it. He INSISTED I have it, so I sat there while he initiated me into the sadhana. What I'd really like is a mole at the third eye like John Lennon had in those pictures inside the White Album, but so far that siddhi has alluded me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Hugo wrote: I'm game, how do we go about meeting the man? Sign up for his email announcement list. If you're going to India I'd try to contact the moderator. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yogi_Karve/ We've been here before Vaj, this site is defunct but I'm still a member from the last time the great FFL Jyotish debate occured. Any newer contact details, the last message on that sirte was in 2004. Oh ok, it may be history. Last I heard he was in Scranton PA in 2006. I'd love to have my view of everything overturned but it would have to be good, if the guy talks to you first there could be all sorts of cold reading going on. Or if you have to fill out any forms at all I'de be suspicious. So how does he actually do it? Does he have an open door so I could just walk in? He spends most of his day in worship and then around 8 or 9 he comes out of worship and does a few readings. You just wait for him to finish and then he comes out and does the reading. A reading consists of him slipping off into samadhi breifly and coming back out again. That includes retrieving your birth data and any questions you ask. In truly enlightened teachers, they can read you the same way. My grandteacher was that way. People were often afraid as he could just tell you the day you would die, etc. He was not a reader per se, but since other yogis knew he was omniscient, they would sometimes intercede and ask questions for people. As with any chaotic event, i.e. a question about an event embedded in the shifting circumstances, one can change circumstances. So things can change, they are not absolute predictions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:16 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: So what does this guy charge? It cost me a 100 dollars but I was told I could give what I could afford.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
snip Same with the Surya Samhita Jyotishis, which are often written on palms leaves and hundreds of years old: these had to be written by someone who was omniscient in some way, there's simply no way around it. How else could they just know these things about you? I certainly can't think of a way. In one case a female friend, alleged to be a reincarnation of a Hindu saint, but an American, went to a Surya Samhita reader. After going thru the various criteria, he arrived at her leaf. Now she had presented with her Swami name and no longer used her birth name. The leaf had her name in English on it. I shit you not. How is that possible? Having studied magical illusions and particularly mental magic I can think of numerous ways to do this trick. That is one of the problems with this kind of test. You need a person trained in magic tricks which is why James Randi insists on this for all psychic tests. I'm not saying that I know that the person doesn't have a special ability, but just that if she hadn't studied how such tricks are done she didn't have a chance. Honestly even when you know how a trick is done a great magician can blow you away with the same trick you do yourself just by a higher level of timing. In magic there is a world of difference between The magician NEVER touched the deck of cards before he spelled out my name with the cards to reveal my chosen card and Well, he touched the deck BEFORE the trick started,but that doesn't count. Only someone trained to notice this difference can sometimes catch it from an expert. Our mind also has the natural tendency to shape our experiences when we retell them just a tad. And that small difference can make all the difference. But I respect that you were impressed with the guy so I would be up to learn more, short of going to India that is! snip After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. Could you do it for us? Do you have the sidhi? I think it is cool that you found someone you were impressed with and would be interested in reading about him. I have not practiced the sadhana and in fact I didn't even want it. He INSISTED I have it, so I sat there while he initiated me into the sadhana. What I'd really like is a mole at the third eye like John Lennon had in those pictures inside the White Album, but so far that siddhi has alluded me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Vaj wrote: I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non-believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. Yogi Karvay asked for no birth data. He places his attention on you, goes into samadhi and as he comes in and out of his transcendence, he reads off all the planets, to the degree, as the actually appeared in the sky and gives your exact birth date and time without ever knowing anything about you. I know because not only has he done mine, he's also done friends of mine. Spot on every time. He predicted Nehru's life when he was in jail and it all turned out as predicted. And Nehru hated astrologers. Depending on special circumstances he may or may not to do detailed predictions. But suffice to say, his descriptions of my life literally took my breath away. After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. Karve asked for my birth date and time as he has others. It is really a mental trick. You memorize some charts throughout time and you'll will generally know the positions of most planets. The one that is almost impossible to do is the Moon. And I don't think he ever mentioned the position of the Moon in my chart. You can also from time and location get a good idea of what the ascendant also aided by the appearance of the person. What Karve did well was his interpretation. He was spot on with what my chart brought to me and the disappointments I'd had in life. Many of the amateurs had missed those things.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Oh ok, it may be history. Last I heard he was in Scranton PA in 2006. I grew up right near there and visit the area a few times a year. This would be a great FFL field trip adventure! Let me know if you have any more detailed contact info. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Hugo wrote: I'm game, how do we go about meeting the man? Sign up for his email announcement list. If you're going to India I'd try to contact the moderator. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yogi_Karve/ We've been here before Vaj, this site is defunct but I'm still a member from the last time the great FFL Jyotish debate occured. Any newer contact details, the last message on that sirte was in 2004. Oh ok, it may be history. Last I heard he was in Scranton PA in 2006. I'd love to have my view of everything overturned but it would have to be good, if the guy talks to you first there could be all sorts of cold reading going on. Or if you have to fill out any forms at all I'de be suspicious. So how does he actually do it? Does he have an open door so I could just walk in? He spends most of his day in worship and then around 8 or 9 he comes out of worship and does a few readings. You just wait for him to finish and then he comes out and does the reading. A reading consists of him slipping off into samadhi breifly and coming back out again. That includes retrieving your birth data and any questions you ask. In truly enlightened teachers, they can read you the same way. My grandteacher was that way. People were often afraid as he could just tell you the day you would die, etc. He was not a reader per se, but since other yogis knew he was omniscient, they would sometimes intercede and ask questions for people. As with any chaotic event, i.e. a question about an event embedded in the shifting circumstances, one can change circumstances. So things can change, they are not absolute predictions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Vaj wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:16 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: So what does this guy charge? It cost me a 100 dollars but I was told I could give what I could afford. Recommended donation. ;-) IOW, getting around the need for some kind of work permit in the US.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: I've stayed out of this jyotish test question, but what I'd offer up as evidence that Jyotish is an actual consciousness-based reality that can determine physical outcomes is that one or more of the non-believers, say Curtis or Barry or whoever who wants to have their limits stretched, should have a Jyotish reading done by Yogi Karvay. Yogi Karvay asked for no birth data. He places his attention on you, goes into samadhi and as he comes in and out of his transcendence, he reads off all the planets, to the degree, as the actually appeared in the sky and gives your exact birth date and time without ever knowing anything about you. I know because not only has he done mine, he's also done friends of mine. Spot on every time. He predicted Nehru's life when he was in jail and it all turned out as predicted. And Nehru hated astrologers. Depending on special circumstances he may or may not to do detailed predictions. But suffice to say, his descriptions of my life literally took my breath away. After he does your reading, he'll initiate you into the sadhana to gain the siddhi as well. Karve asked for my birth date and time as he has others. It is really a mental trick. You memorize some charts throughout time and you'll will generally know the positions of most planets. The one that is almost impossible to do is the Moon. And I don't think he ever mentioned the position of the Moon in my chart. You can also from time and location get a good idea of what the ascendant also aided by the appearance of the person. What Karve did well was his interpretation. He was spot on with what my chart brought to me and the disappointments I'd had in life. Many of the amateurs had missed those things. You blew it. You shouldn't have given it. Yes, he will ask some people. That's the only way you'd know. He guessed my moon exactly, to the degree--there was a pause between cognizing the house and the degree. As he gave off each, I wrote them down in my diary. He helped a friend who's moon was on the cusp rectify the correct house. No birth date or time was given. None. Of course I'm sure he can do it either way (with or without the birth time). I knew little of him at the time, as I thought all he did was rectify birth times. So that's what I went for. I didn't realize he did interpretations until he started telling me my life (and previous lives).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: In magic there is a world of difference between The magician NEVER touched the deck of cards before he spelled out my name with the cards to reveal my chosen card and Well, he touched the deck BEFORE the trick started,but that doesn't count. Only someone trained to notice this difference can sometimes catch it from an expert. Our mind also has the natural tendency to shape our experiences when we retell them just a tad. And that small difference can make all the difference. I knew it! The ancient science of card tricks came from the Ved! (of course they used Vedic palm leaves).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: What he seems to be doing is claiming AFTER THE FACT AND WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PROOF that he knew that my friend's medical condition was that she was pregnant. I think that's total bullshit. Barry, I thought your initial challenge to John's Jyotish abilities was a set up for a smack down. You recovered some credibility when you offered a blind test, but I was still skeptical you might pull a fast one by posting the Jyotish of one of your dogs. Sorry for doubting you, but we haven't been on friendly terms from the git-go. I admire your writing abilities minus the nasty crap and that's the best compliment I can muster for today. I'd like to see another Jyotish test that has fairness and integrity on both sides of the challenge. Yes, John dropped the ball while protecting his own, but he was understandably suspicious of knives at the ready. Jyotish has been around for a long time, you'd think it would have been tested plenty already. I really want to know if it's any better than reading tea leaves or Tarot. Hey, RaunchD Barry has just confirmed in more explicit words what he thought of my comment to do.reflex in his private email to me. I was rather surprised that he reacted with such venom in his last post. It is revealing as to how much his animosity can reach when anyone mentions anything about vedic sciences or any gurus from that tradition. Nonetheless, there is story in the Shrimad Bhagavatam that essentially states that one's hatred for anyone or subject is really proportionate to how much that person thinks about the other person or subject. Thus, in the end, the hater merges with the object of hatred. JR
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Vaj wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: In magic there is a world of difference between The magician NEVER touched the deck of cards before he spelled out my name with the cards to reveal my chosen card and Well, he touched the deck BEFORE the trick started,but that doesn't count. Only someone trained to notice this difference can sometimes catch it from an expert. Our mind also has the natural tendency to shape our experiences when we retell them just a tad. And that small difference can make all the difference. I knew it! The ancient science of card tricks came from the Ved! (of course they used Vedic palm leaves). There is a book of Nadi Astrology that has some of the palm leaf charts. It appears to me that a bunch of pundits went through as an exercise about every possible combination of planets in signs and made interpretations based on that. Then an astrologer can add to that if he knows the ascendant by doing house interpretations. Notice that Barry didn't answer my question which might even imply an answer. ;-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Vaj wrote: You blew it. You shouldn't have given it. Yes, he will ask some people. That's the only way you'd know. He guessed my moon exactly, to the degree--there was a pause between cognizing the house and the degree. As he gave off each, I wrote them down in my diary. He helped a friend who's moon was on the cusp rectify the correct house. No birth date or time was given. None. Of course I'm sure he can do it either way (with or without the birth time). I knew little of him at the time, as I thought all he did was rectify birth times. So that's what I went for. I didn't realize he did interpretations until he started telling me my life (and previous lives). I would have had to argue with him for that. Most of the jyotishis I know who went to see him were disappointed he asked for the chart information. K.N. Rao had told us that Karve could do the charts by intuition. Sometimes doing astrology is just a cover for using intuition for a reading. Some clients want a chart reading so an intuitive will print out a chart and act like they are doing an interpretation from it. However Karve's interpretation was pretty true to rules regarding my chart. Some folks here mentioned that the amateurs were telling them that they would become rich. I was told I would have a wealthy wife. I don't have a horoscope for marriage however many of my girlfriends were from wealthy families (and they came after me not me them). As some master jyotishis said, you don't have a horoscope for marriage, have flings instead. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Vaj wrote: You blew it. You shouldn't have given it. Yes, he will ask some people. That's the only way you'd know. He guessed my moon exactly, to the degree--there was a pause between cognizing the house and the degree. As he gave off each, I wrote them down in my diary. He helped a friend who's moon was on the cusp rectify the correct house. No birth date or time was given. None. Of course I'm sure he can do it either way (with or without the birth time). I knew little of him at the time, as I thought all he did was rectify birth times. So that's what I went for. I didn't realize he did interpretations until he started telling me my life (and previous lives). I would have had to argue with him for that. Most of the jyotishis I know who went to see him were disappointed he asked for the chart information. K.N. Rao had told us that Karve could do the charts by intuition. Sometimes doing astrology is just a cover for using intuition for a reading. Some clients want a chart reading so an intuitive will print out a chart and act like they are doing an interpretation from it. However Karve's interpretation was pretty true to rules regarding my chart. Some folks here mentioned that the amateurs were telling them that they would become rich. I was told I would have a wealthy wife. I don't have a horoscope for marriage however many of my girlfriends were from wealthy families (and they came after me not me them). As some master jyotishis said, you don't have a horoscope for marriage, have flings instead. :-D I've heard of the Jyotishis who memorize the tables, but I was told this was a different deal altogether. Next time I see him I'll try the shotgun test to check his startle. Maharishi declared him a Sat Purush if that's of any consolation. ;-) It would be interesting to hear Ben Collins insights, he stayed at Ben's house on one of his tours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
jesus B., all you do is bullshit and pontificate here, and now you are making proclamations of what people should and shouldn't do to prove this and that to you. what a hypocrite. you are the one without any balls. none. i guess getting kicked out of the Movement really did a number on you. i can't believe you were this messed up all of your life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: -snip- If he *didn't* know anything, and is now claiming to have only to protect his own rep as a Jyotishi and Jyotish itself, again there is the same bottom line -- no balls. I really did give the guy a chance. And this is what he does with it. I think that the conclusion that any thinking person should draw from this is that Jyotish is a crock of shit *and* that its practitioners like JohnR *know* that it's a crock of shit. In other words, they are charlatans. If JohnR feels differently, and cares to dispute this, there is only one way to do so -- put his predictions to the test. Allow me or someone else to propose another blind test and this time follow through with it and post his analysis of the chart in question. That's what a person who had balls would do. I expect JohnR to whine and lie instead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Vaj wrote: You blew it. You shouldn't have given it. Yes, he will ask some people. That's the only way you'd know. He guessed my moon exactly, to the degree--there was a pause between cognizing the house and the degree. As he gave off each, I wrote them down in my diary. He helped a friend who's moon was on the cusp rectify the correct house. No birth date or time was given. None. Of course I'm sure he can do it either way (with or without the birth time). I knew little of him at the time, as I thought all he did was rectify birth times. So that's what I went for. I didn't realize he did interpretations until he started telling me my life (and previous lives). I would have had to argue with him for that. Most of the jyotishis I know who went to see him were disappointed he asked for the chart information. K.N. Rao had told us that Karve could do the charts by intuition. Sometimes doing astrology is just a cover for using intuition for a reading. Some clients want a chart reading so an intuitive will print out a chart and act like they are doing an interpretation from it. However Karve's interpretation was pretty true to rules regarding my chart. Some folks here mentioned that the amateurs were telling them that they would become rich. I was told I would have a wealthy wife. I don't have a horoscope for marriage however many of my girlfriends were from wealthy families (and they came after me not me them). As some master jyotishis said, you don't have a horoscope for marriage, have flings instead. :-D In your case, you should take what Nature gives you. It's better than being humbled by wining and dining those women who are hard to get--that includes asking the girl's father for her hand.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 11:16 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: So what does this guy charge? It cost me a 100 dollars but I was told I could give what I could afford. Why is it mediums and astrologers don't like checks because they can't tell if the check is good or not?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart Barry posted this only a little over 24 hours since he first proposed the test. And he said he'd wait until 7:00 p.m. EST to post the answer. For all he knew, John was busy working on it, planning to post his results by Barry's original deadline. , and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) One is led to wonder whether Barry jumped the gun in posting his answer because he hoped to preclude any possibility of John getting it right *without* the answer being available. He set John up by giving him one deadline, then didn't honor it himself. Typical. snip Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy For privacy? My, my. Barry spends a good part of the rest of his post (as well as a previous one) accusing me of mentioning privacy as a bogus straw man that I brought up only to demonize him, and makes much jolly ha-ha over how he fooled us into thinking there *was* a privacy issue. But here he himself acknowledges there is, in fact, a privacy issue. snip Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public Barry's lying; neither of us ever accused him of violating his friend's privacy. I *asked* if he had her permission, to no response except an evasive and deceptive one; raunchy simply pointed out that *if* he had done so, he might be vulnerable to a lawsuit. they were *looking for things to demonize me with* Actually, I was concerned about Barry's friend's privacy (just as he has now acknowledged he is). and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. The possibility that Barry was violating his friend's privacy is hardly a straw man. Barry himself clearly realized this after I pointed it out, and decided not to reveal her name after all. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) More evidence of Barry's dishonesty. Not only was our concern entirely justified before we knew she wasn't ill, it's *still* justified. That she can't hide her late pregnancy from those who can *see* her doesn't mean she's willing to have it announced, along with her name, on a public forum. There are many possible reasons why a woman wouldn't want to spread the news of her pregnancy far and wide. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. And Barry bashes me for insinuating! Just how thick can he layer on the hypocrisy? Nobody would have stalked her, of course. She has no involvement in this at all. That's a ridiculously paranoid notion, and Barry knows it. He came up with it in an attempt to cover up the reason he really deleted her name: because he belatedly realized it would be an invasion of her privacy to post it, just as I pointed out. I shouldn't have *had* to point it out, but once I had, the appropriate response from Barry would have been, Yes, you're right; OK, I won't post her name. Instead, he tried to turn it into a weapon to bash me with. That's how much integrity Barry has. Oh, and by the way, we know now that he *didn't* have her permission to post her data with her name attached, despite his attempt to make it seem as though he had. (I'd be willing to bet a large sum that she doesn't know what he's doing even now.) I still think that this would have been an interesting test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. Actually, for all Barry knew when he wrote this, it might well have been because Barry didn't give John the time to respond to it, moving up his deadline by almost six hours without even warning John he was doing so. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. It may speak a lot more powerfully about Barry's fear that John might have gotten it right. But the interesting test that DID take place was
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart Barry posted this only a little over 24 hours since he first proposed the test. And he said he'd wait until 7:00 p.m. EST to post the answer. For all he knew, John was busy working on it, planning to post his results by Barry's original deadline. He's out for revenge right now and is proposing another test. Why would anyone want to participate in such a setup? I still think that this would have been an interesting test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. Actually, for all Barry knew when he wrote this, it might well have been because Barry didn't give John the time to respond to it, moving up his deadline by almost six hours without even warning John he was doing so. He's playing the macho card to entice members with jyotish knowledge to participate in his scheme. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. It may speak a lot more powerfully about Barry's fear that John might have gotten it right. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. It's Barry's thoroughly, many-times-over dishonest response to our response that would fill libraries. snip As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart According to Bhairitu, it's not that easy. It's certainly not said to be easy in Western astrology. Oh, and one more thing to point out that's been overlooked: Barry's proposal, true to form, was deliberately misleading. Yes, pregnancy is a medical condition, but we had been talking about detecting illness. An astrologer searching for signs of an illness might well completely overlook indicators of pregnancy. Barry hoped that would be enough to throw John off. In retrospect, I strongly suspect John sensed that there was deception involved and refused to allow himself to be played. Could be what Nabby and ed11 and raunchy and I sensed too, without realizing what the specifics were. Judy, everyone in this forum suspected it was a trap.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR John, what specifically did you know -before- Barry typed the email to the moderators? PS Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public, they were *looking for things to demonize me with*, and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, in case someone actually wants them to confirm that this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. I still think that this would have been an interest- ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. Happy New Year, Unc/Turq/Barry *** Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature of the medical condition that my friend is deal- ing with. The birth data: Born: Suffern, New York, USA September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) The person, and their medical condition: This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. Both medical doctors and alternative care providers have assured her that all is perfectly fine with the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, but as I said there is the possibility of required surgery if things don't go as planned. As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to get pregnant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rf...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR John, what specifically did you know -before- Barry typed the email to the moderators? Ask Barry. He knows it and he can confirm it. PS Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public, they were *looking for things to demonize me with*, and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, in case someone actually wants them to confirm that this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. I still think that this would have been an interest- ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. Happy New Year, Unc/Turq/Barry *** Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature of the medical condition that my friend is deal- ing with. The birth data: Born: Suffern, New York, USA September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) The person, and their medical condition: This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. Both medical doctors and alternative care providers have assured her that all is perfectly fine with the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, but as I said there is the possibility of required surgery if things don't go as planned. As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR PS Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public, they were *looking for things to demonize me with*, and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, in case someone actually wants them to confirm that this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. I still think that this would have been an interest- ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. Happy New Year, Unc/Turq/Barry *** Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature of the medical condition that my friend is deal- ing with. The birth data: Born: Suffern, New York, USA September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) The person, and their medical condition: This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. Both medical doctors and alternative care providers have assured her that all is perfectly fine with the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, but as I said there is the possibility of required surgery if things don't go as planned. As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to get pregnant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR PS Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public, they were *looking for things to demonize me with*, and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, in case someone actually wants them to confirm that this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. I still think that this would have been an interest- ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. Happy New Year, Unc/Turq/Barry *** Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature of the medical condition that my friend is deal- ing with. The birth data: Born: Suffern, New York, USA September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) The person, and their medical condition: This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. Both medical doctors and alternative care providers have assured her that all is perfectly fine with the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, but as I said there is the possibility of required surgery if things don't go as planned. As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to get pregnant. Dang, Barry. I was sure you were going to put one of your dogs up for the Jyotish test. My bad. Anyway, have a Happy New Year.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: Barry, I knew that even before you typed the email to the moderators. JR PS Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Since it appears that JohnR is not going to respond to my challenge with his analysis of my friend's medical condition as indicated in her Jyotish chart, and I want to finish up my participation in all existing threads on FFL before the new year starts, I will post the answer. ( It goes without saying that any subsequent attempts by JohnR or any other Jyotishi to say, Oh, I saw that in the chart, but I was just late in posting my response should be greeted with howls of derisive laughter. :-) The medical issue my friend is dealing with is called being pregnant. Other than that simple and fairly common medical issue, she is 100% healthy. Her doctors, both allopathic and from the world of alternative medicine, believe that she will have a normal home birth, but just in case, arrangements have been made by the midwives at a nearby hospital in case she requires surgery. We all hope that isn't necessary. Below is the text I sent to the FFL moderators. The only thing I changed in it was to delete my friend's last name (for privacy, and to keep stalkers away from her) and to insert the word best in front of friend, because she really is my best friend. I'm heading off in a few min- utes to spend the rest of the year with her, even though that'll only be five hours. :-) Had JohnR analyzed the chart and posted that he found indicators of disease, that would have been partly because I described her condition as a medical issue. Well, duh, it is. Giving birth IS a medical issue, and never a 100% safe one. But IMO the only reason he would have found indicators of disease in her chart would have been because *he was looking for them*, and projecting them onto a chart in which they did not appear. Similarly, when Judy and Raunchydog accused me of violating my friend's privacy by making her medical condition public, they were *looking for things to demonize me with*, and projecting them onto the situation in the form of the bogus privacy straw man. Please join me in laughing at their attempts to portray me as a Bad Guy for violating my friend's medical privacy. It's hard to *miss* the medical condition of someone who is eight and a half months pregnant; keeping it private is just not an option unless you are wearing a tent. :-) The original letter to the FFL moderators follows, in case someone actually wants them to confirm that this is what I sent to them earlier. As noted above, the only thing in it I have changed is to delete my friend's last name out of concern that one or more TBs here would start stalking her the same way that they stalk me and Vaj and Paul Mason and John Knapp and others who have dared to be critical of TM or its ludicrous extra added cost products like Jyotish. I still think that this would have been an interest- ing test, if JohnR had had the cojones to respond to it. But he didn't. I think that speaks for itself about the depth of *his* belief in the accuracy and efficacy of Jyotish. But the interesting test that DID take place was how a few TM True Believers here responded to the idea of Jyotish being put to the test. If John's lack of a response speaks volumes, theirs fills libraries. Happy New Year, Unc/Turq/Barry *** Sent to Rick, Alex, and gullible_fool: As mentioned on FFL, I am challenging JohnR to use the birth data below to pinpoint the nature of the medical condition that my friend is deal- ing with. The birth data: Born: Suffern, New York, USA September 18, 1965 18:06 (6:06 p.m.) The person, and their medical condition: This is the birth data for my best friend Laurel, who is very, very pregnant and about to give birth. Both medical doctors and alternative care providers have assured her that all is perfectly fine with the pregnancy, and that there is no danger to either mother or (soon) daughter. A normal birth is planned, but as I said there is the possibility of required surgery if things don't go as planned. As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to get pregnant. Dang, Barry. I was sure you were going to put one of your dogs up for the Jyotish test. My bad. Anyway, have a Happy New Year. That might be a rather old dog wouldn't it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Answer to the Jyotish Test
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: -snip- As I understand Jyotish, *if it works* John should have no problem with noticing this medical condition in her chart, even if I did not specify the sex of the person. In fact another Jyotish practitioner DID, in fact, predict the pregnancy from her chart a year before it happened. She wasn't trying to get pregnant. Dang, Barry. I was sure you were going to put one of your dogs up for the Jyotish test. My bad. Anyway, have a Happy New Year. oops, he did- a blue ribbon winner- and she's pregnant too! awesome B. you da man!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anchal's answer to Tyra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That in turn seems to suggest that the Vedic culture was originally a creation of some Siberian shamans, or some other weirdos in the area that nowadays is Russia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnnEQ0Vzv0k Not Finnish weirdos ??
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anchal's answer to Tyra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: That in turn seems to suggest that the Vedic culture was originally a creation of some Siberian shamans, or some other weirdos in the area that nowadays is Russia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnnEQ0Vzv0k Not Finnish weirdos ?? Not eggzactly, but perhaps Finno-Ugric weirdos (Maris, Mordvians, etc): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Muromian-map.png
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question. matrixmonitor
Thanks! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Sure. Ramana was devoted to the Arunachala Hill, a murti of the static form of Shiva . (p.2 Bhagavan Sri Ramana, A Pictorial Biography, published by Sri V.S. Ramanan, President, Sri Ramanasramam). Bhagavan spoke these words: (p.1): Siva, the Lord Supreme whom all adore, Us'd once His trident in a mighty act of Grace; That trident He made in times of yore, Proclaims for e'er Tiruchili a sacred place. In Necklet of Nine Gems, Bhagavan is quoted as saying: To rescue me--born of virtuous Sundara and Sunari in the holy town of Tiruchili, seat of Bhuminatheswara--from this barren worldly life, He raised me to His state that His Heart might so rejoice, the immanence of Siva so shine forth, and the Self flourish. Such is Arunachala, famous throughout the universe!'. (page 1). In Marital Garland of Letters, his transcribed words are: From my home Thou didst entice me, then stealing into my heart didst draw me gently into Thine, such is Thy Grace, O Arunachala. (p. 17). Bhagavan saw the Arunachala Hill for the first time in 1896, and then later said From here Jnana Sambadha beheld the peak of Arunagiri and sang verses out of excess joy and installed an image of Arunacheleswara in the same spot. (p. 21). Then, Bhagavan wrote out (in his own handwriting) a quote of Saint Sambandha: On the hill Arunachala, little animals like deer, bears, and pigs along with big ones like elephants roam about fearlessly. Here Lord Arunachala abides as Supreme Knowledge, santified with the Holy name Annamalai, and blesses His devotes with his characteriscally unfailing grace by removing their shortcomings. Then, at the last stage of journey to Arunachala, Bhagavan (then Venkataraman), entered the Arunacheleswara Temple and beheld the Arunacheleswara Lingam. The editor (p 24) states, As though the Father was thus preparing to welcome his 'beloved son ', Venkataraman walked straight into the inmost shrine and addressed Arunachaleswara thus: I have come to Thee at Thy behst. Thy will be done. The foregoing thus provides a brief set of statements in Bhagavan's words attesting to the fact that one can be devoted to a God - a Deity, even after realizing the Self. Such devotion by no means implies a state of dualistic ignorance. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, netineti3 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. Can you please tell where it says Ramana Maharishi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva? I am curious why you say this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:34 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: [...] feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. There is a sense that one becomes the center of ones own mandala and all items in the field of awareness are unified elements that have a relation to your energetic manifestation of universal chiti. At the level of unity, thought takes on a very different role. When I hear someone making a claim of Unity, one of the things I'll listen for is how they integrate thought from their nondual POV. The analogy one of my Bonpo masters gave was it's like watching fish move within water. More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. They are actually using it to describe a certain type of integration, and the description does follow the experience, as it has to do not only with integration of the movement of thoughts (as opposed to silence) but other phenomenon as well. Silence in the midst of thoughts... Or even, thoughts that are still silence. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. You heard right, but it's all an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Lawson wrote: More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. sandiego wrote: sounds like three's a crowd. It appears like there are three things, but in reality there's only One.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. Richard Hughes wrote: You heard right, but it's all an illusion. It's an illusion, but things are not unreal. Things are presented to us, but because of ignorance they are mistaken for the real thing; things *appear* to be real. That's different than things being an 'illusion' or unreal. In Adwaita, things are not unreal, yet not real; they are an appearance only. Excerpt from mANDUkya kArikA IV by gauDapAda: Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of conciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within conciousness (IV 25-27) Sharma). Translation: 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B., Shastri, Dept. of Phil., Benares Hindu U. Rider, 1960
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
---There's One as 3 things. (and more) In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lawson wrote: More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. sandiego wrote: sounds like three's a crowd. It appears like there are three things, but in reality there's only One.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question. Three as ONE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---There's One as 3 things. (and more) http://www.dattapeetham.org/india/datta/DattaLarg.html The path of Dattatreya embraces all spiritual paths and is the source of all other traditions. He who treads the path of Truth, regardless of what religion he belongs to, is treading the path of Dattatreya. As an incarnation of God, Datta came down to spread the universality of true religion. Anyone can be his follower, regardless of cast, creed, status, be they student, householder, recluse or renunciate. No matter what sect or religion the true seeker follows, eventually he comes under the guidance of Lord Dattatreya, the Eternal Spiritual Guide of all mankind. Datta's presence is not limited to any one country or sphere, as He is the Guru of all Gurus, the all-seeing, all-powerful, ever-present link between God and Man. However, special places of worship (Datta Peethas) have grown up around sacred areas, where His presence is most strongly felt by the sincere seeker of Datta. These places include Suchindram, Senthamangalam, Mount Girnar, Nagalapuram in Andhra, Prayag, Datta Guha in the Himalayas, Gulbarga -Ganagapura, Narasimhavadi in Maharastra, Quthambara near Poona, Avadumbara, Somapuram, Chandradronagiri and Datta Peetha at Sri Ganapathi Sachchidananda Ashrama, Mysore. One notable aspect of these Datta Peethas is their indefinable but inseparable relationship with worship of God as Mother http://www.dattapeetham.org/india/datta/RajaText.html , the Supreme Energy -Shakti. (Hence, Sri Swamiji's fierce aspect as Mother Chamunda.) Parasurama (eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu), approached Lord Dattatreya and was initiated into the intricacies of how to worship the Mother (Shreevidya Upaasana), before undertaking intense penance to obtain the grace of the Divine Mother. The Saandilya Upanishad declares very clearly that Lord Dattatreya is the Supreme Reality and is the cause of everything that is created. It states, The Supreme Brahman performed penance which was of the nature of knowledge (jnyana), and desiring to become many, assumed the form of Dattatreya. From that form came out the three letters A, U, M; the three mystical names Bhuh, Bhuvah and Svah; the three-lined Gayatri; the three Vedas Rig, Yajur and Sama; the three Gods Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara; the three castes Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vysya; and the three fires Gaarhapatya, Ashavaneeya and Dakshina. The lord is endowed with all wealth. He is all pervading and resides in the hearts of all beings. He is the great Maayavi, sporting with His own Maaya. He is Brahma. His Vishnu, He is Rudra. He is Indra and He is also all the gods of heaven and all other beings. He is East, He is West, He is North, He is South, He is below and He is above. He is everything. This is the glory of the form of Dattatreya. Lord Dattatreya came as the Supreme Philosopher (Avadhoota http://www.dattapeetham.org/india/datta/avadhuta.html ) so that the true meaning and purpose of Sacrifice (Tyaaga) may be revealed to mankind. Atri, His father, symbolizes penance (tapas) as described in the scriptures, and Anasooya represents freedom from jealousy. When penance and non-jealous nature unite in a single person, the highest truth emerges as Lord Dattatreya. As ultimate self-sacrifice, the Supreme God gave Himself as Datta to Atri and Anasooya. Hence, Datta means not only that which is given, but also as the ideal of giving without desire for reward, i.e. selfless giving. The whole life of Dattatreya shows us that this giving selflessly is the true renunciation/sacrifice. The significance of this sacrifice is stated in the Dattatreya Upanishad where the Lord says, Not by action, not by progeny, nor even by self, but by renunciation (tyaaga) alone is immortality attained. Real renunciation is the giving up of I and mine, not the mere abandoning of duties. Living a selfless life require giving up one's ego. That is what Lord Dattatreya describes as true sacrifice. As a Yoga-Avatar, Lord Dattatreya teaches us to perform all our duties skillfully and diligently. Yoga does not require outside aids, nor does it demand great physical effort. All we have to do is change our outlook and transform our attitude to life. This change consist of giving up the idea or feeling of doership, enjoyership and the resultant anxiety (and attachment ) for the fruits of our actions. By performing all our duties with this changed outlook, our mind will be freed from agitation and attain the restful state called equanimity, or the state where there is no mind. This is the state of Bliss that every soul ultimately aspires to. This is the state of Datta - the ultimate Gift of God. Symbolically Lord Dattatreya is depicted with three heads, six hands, four dogs, standing in front of a cow and tree. In his hands He holds a drum (damaru), discus like weapon (chakra), conch shell (sankh), rosary
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
It appears like there are three things, but in reality there's only One. matrix: There's One as 3 things. So, you are thinking that there are three reals. Does that make any sense? I think not. (and more) If true, then you would be termed a multifarious trinitarian. Maybe to you things appear as three or more things, which if true, you would be termed as having blurred vision, a mote in your eye, or more. Most people don't see One thing as three things. There is a door, not three doors; a table, not three tables. You can run and jump, but there are not three of you running and jumping. There's only One you, your Self - all the others are just hungry ghosts, causing you to have triple vision.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
(snip) to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. Rather than a God worshipped as if outside us, the exact same, clearly defined energy is then found within us. It is a trippy feeling, so much so that it even creeps me out a little bit. If I wasn't able to experience it, I wouldn't believe it. Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, all there, all here. now here = nowhere. When Maharishi talks about 'self-referral', all is contained within Self. Self is the unbounded pure transcendental self of consciousness of itself. Now, that consciousness of Self, can vibrate this way or that. According to the vibration, or Deva, or whatever... This can be made manifest on the level of vibration. Because this fine level of vibration is established in pure consciousness, then the influence of a consciousness vibrating Shiva, would have infinite value. Same with vibrating the influence of Vishnu or Rama... Same would be the vibration of Jesus, if you wanted to use Jesus as your inspiration, on the finest level of the essence of Jesus, you would find a loving teacher... The 'myth' of Jesus is the 'myth' of Life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
(snip) Jesus is here, and he wants to resurrect somebody! - Rumi Jesus was a revolutionary teacher of his time, and of any time. His ideas go against the Power of Rome(or any earthly power)... Which cause him to be killed. He was the predicted 'Messiah', and was able to transcend the 'Old Testament... His main teaching was love and forgiveness. Another main teaching was to keep yourself pure from impure earthly influences, same as Maharishi's teaching. He healed by taking people out of the city, on sort of residence type courses, where he had the people purify themselves, with clean water, air, sunlight, beauty and love. He had the power to expell lower vibrations from people. He was a great healer. He was charge with Sedition against Rome, and was executed for his alledged crime, of going against the money grubbers in the Temple. Many people, mostly Jews were crucified, in those days... Many early Jewish followers of Jesus were taken to Rome- For the amusement of the Elitist Classes, to watch death, and hacking of human beings being eaten alive, burned alive, any torture which can be imagined. We live in a similar world today. We watch the same kind of filth on the collaseum of our time- TV... Modern war, modern culture- there's really no difference. We have a candidate who loves war, John McCain. We have another candidate who will do anything in her lust for power. And we have someone who stands for the same principles as Jesus; Being crucified for his beliefs, which conflict with the Roman/US/Corporate interests... Not much has changed... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. I believe that for a person who grew up in a developed county in the last 80 years the assimilation of some of the principles of science are a given. Even spirituality often uses uses proof systems that appear to be empirical to some degree. I would suggest that appear to be is the operative term here. :-) It is only after proffered evidence is show to be lacking does the rejection of all science usually take place IME. Even the New Testament tries to build a case for Jesus' divinity based on the performance of physical miracles witnessed and reported by numbers of people. It surprised me on a re-read in the last few years how much time is spent trying to make this case. There is much more time spent on the miracles than any of his presentation of ethical philosophy which he gets so much undeserved credit for IMO. Now this is a subject I can identify with and sink my teeth into. :-) I have seen *exactly* the same phenomenon in operation with regard to the Rama fellow I studied with. True, he could *do* miracles, at least well enough that hundreds of people would see phenomena like levitating or disappearing at the same time, and be able to report on it with absolute confidence that that's what they saw and experienced. A lot of those people still trot out the miracle show as proof that he was enlight- ened. Me, I don't see ANY link between flashy miracles and enlightenment or (spit) divinity, but my opinion is obviously contrary to that of human civilization for centuries. People seem to have *always* been flashed out by miracles and paranormal phenomena. Why? I think that allows them a kind of subjective proof for their faith, which otherwise would be mere faith, and thus suspect. They want something they can regard as objective with which to bolster their subjective feelings. Look at The Exorcist. No really...it's a profoundly religious work by a profoundly Catholic writer. His main character, a priest, has lost faith in God. What brings that faith *back* is his encounter with the supernatural, in the form of the devil. William Peter Blatty plays with a similar form of miracle in his film The Ninth Configuration, in which one of the characters not only makes a Christ-like sacrifice for someone else, but offers a message from beyond the grave to prove to the doubter that his doubts are unfounded. And, at the same time, the actual *teachings* of Christ sometimes go by the wayside and are ignored, in favor of the flash. The Rama fellow I studied with had some really interesting things to say and things to teach, and *that* is what stays with me ten years after his death, not the miracle shit. But that's obviously not so with a great number of people. Go figure, is all I have to say. In the Christ myth, the biggie of course is the transcendence of death. That's most people's big fear, the Big Question Mark hanging over their often-ignored but always-present awareness of their eventual fate. If he can die and not die, maybe I can, too seems to be the operating system in place with this kind of faith. At any rate, it's a fascinating subject. Thanks for bringing it up, Curtis. And, since I peeked at the first few lines of someone else's followup before I wrote this one, I don't think you made Jesus our bitch. Paul more than did that long ago by claiming that he died for our sins. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- curtisdeltablues wrote: There is much more time spent on the miracles than any of [Jesus'] presentation of ethical philosophy which he gets so much undeserved credit for IMO. Way to slap down Jesus, Curtis! You made Him your bitch! Seriously, though, that one miracle - coming back from the dead - was a doozy, wasn't it? And the way it came right after his No. 1 ethical teaching to forgive those who hurt us. Kind of a powerful one-two punch, doncha think? Jesus is here, and he wants to resurrect somebody! - Rumi Not a big Jesus guy. His philosophy was not original (even chimps have forgiveness rituals)and the whole mythology was a rehash of precious culture's myths. I enjoy reading the Bible, but can hardly believe this was the myth that sold so well in the world out of all the options. Luck of the draw and the political uses of early Christianity as a unifier and stompdown tool I guess. Nice Rumi quote though. My favorite Jesus quote is my original: Hey Jesus, since you've risen, how about getting me a beer! I'd rethink that one if I were you, Curtis. If he made wine from water, he might be tempted to make beer after...uh...making water. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: Bonobo chimps are hilarious. They evolved in a region with plenty of food so they are not very aggressive and they screw at the drop of a hat (or in this case, a banana) We did a Pushing Daisies last fall with a Bonobo monkey. The little guy was really cute and friendly. I asked the trainer why he had to wear a diaper. Apparently, if they don't have on the diaper they masturbate as much as they physically can. H...I'm thinkin' you could have worked that into the plotline. Ned must have similar issues, given his somewhat...uh...distant relationship with Chuck. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He never had anything to offer!!! Atheists generally don't, but that is another subject. Atheists, hmmm? Is that sorta like a nigger or a spic? Worse. Niggers and spics know their place.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- curtisdeltablues wrote: Gillam wrote: What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would think it would have something to do with how enjoying life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not see beauty were more likely to say, What the fuck, and give up. I don't believe that human happiness has to have a reason. It doesn't seem to really be a product of the gene's need to reproduce since so often the desire to have kids beyond someone's means brings unhappiness and struggle. Many miserable bastards seem to do quite well in surviving and perpetuating their genes. Yeah, lots of people are depressed, for example. You'd think evolution would have had enough time to weed depression out of the mix if being happy was essential to survival and the propagation of the species. I'm genuinely interested in having someone explain how beauty and the appreciation of beauty help propagate life. I'm not coming up with a very persuasive explanation on my own. I'm more comfortable with the consciousness theory in this regard - that love, truth and beauty are the Holy Trinity of the underlying force of life. Evolution is about adapting to a given environment. Thus life in the water over the course of millions of years will become perfectly suited to water. A well evolved species will live in perfect harmony with the living things and physical world around them. That is the nature of evolution. Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Plus, there is a simple physiological reason why viewing certain things of beauty is perceived as calming and inspirational. It's all in the eyes. You stand on the rim of Grand Canyon and look out and you feel uplifted. Well, it's physiological. The muscles that control your eyes are at rest when they are focused on infinity (that is, far distances, not infinity per se). When they have to focus on something closer, there is always some subtle strain in the system, because the muscles are working to hold the eyes focused on those closer objects. So vistas are perceived to be inspiring because our brain (*real* close to the eyes, after all) notices the lack of strain. Now imagine living pretty much one's whole life inside buildings where you can never focus far away, or in cities where again you can never focus far away. Go out into the countryside for a day and your eyes get to see a horizon again, and relax. As a result, you feel more relaxed and uplifted. One wonders if there are similar mechanisms in place for other uplifting phenomena. I know of at least one -- the sound of the sea or of falling water. That's pure white noise, which is test- ably associated with being perceived as relaxing by humans. Could there be similar physiological effects in place for smelling a flower, or even for noticing its beauty?
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apparently, if they don't have on the diaper they masturbate as much as they physically can. That helps? Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a try and report back! LOL. But, if you want a real laugh, do a search on Google group alt.meditation.transcendental for diaper and read John Knapp's (founder of TM-Free) tales of wearing cold wet diapers (at the suggestion of Maharishi and some of his pundit buddies) to help him in his quest to be celibate while living at Livingston Manor. I never quite got the logic of this particular regime. You wear a wet diaper to bed so that you don't have wet dreams. You wake up and your sheets are *still* all wet. Where's the payoff? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: He never had anything to offer!!! Atheists generally don't, but that is another subject. Atheists, hmmm? Is that sorta like a nigger or a spic? Worse. Niggers and spics know their place. Even worse, atheists are sneaky. Read this hilarious blog by an atheist expelled (singled out and not allowed in) from a showing of the Christian Creationist propaganda film Expelled. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:47 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: My favorite Jesus quote is my original: Hey Jesus, since you've risen, how about getting me a beer! I found Jesus! he was behind the couch the whole time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: --- BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: He never had anything to offer!!! Atheists generally don't, but that is another subject. Atheists, hmmm? Is that sorta like a nigger or a spic? Worse. Niggers and spics know their place. Even worse, atheists are sneaky. Read this hilarious blog by an atheist expelled (singled out and not allowed in) from a showing of the Christian Creationist propaganda film Expelled. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php As another followup, here is a long but utterly fascinating first-hand review of the film itself by another atheist. I'm not an activist atheist, more of a Buddhist atheist in that I see no need for a God in creation, but this is a fascinating account. The *mindset* of the producers and the attendees is sometimes scary. All I can say is it's just like the Bible...a tale filled with horror and humor and dire predictions about the fate of those who believe and those who don't believe, mixed with equal doses of faith and elitism and unreasoning paranoia. Read it and make up your own minds: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826 or http://tinyurl.com/2rqw8g
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- curtisdeltablues wrote: --- Angela Mailander wrote: Chimps have forgiveness rituals??? The source is Peacemaking Among Primates by De Waal the bonobo expert. Most social primates have to have a way to make up to keep the society together. They will offer a hand to the mouth of the chimp they harmed and this gives the chimp a chance to bite them. If it is taken gently all is forgiven. Interesting! I've heard that many African societies have cultures of forgiveness. I wonder if there's a connection between forgiveness being a trait of a human society and its birth among chimps of the region. For people who like to make fun of religions, be sure to check out Eddie Izzard's standup routines. My family's Easter celebration was to watch selected riffs on religion from Dressed to Kill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-k
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- Mr. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyhoo...I just have to wonder about the deeper hidden drives that make a person NEED to discount any possible goodness that our civilizations' 'spiritual' people may have brought us. That really is a good question. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bonobo chimps are hilarious. They evolved in a region with plenty of food so they are not very aggressive and they screw at the drop of a hat (or in this case, a banana) We did a Pushing Daisies last fall with a Bonobo monkey. The little guy was really cute and friendly. I asked the trainer why he had to wear a diaper. Apparently, if they don't have on the diaper they masturbate as much as they physically can. They're cute little fuckers, literally! Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Here's wikipedia on the historicity of jesus There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called Chrestus in Suetonius. Pliny condemned Christians as easily-led fools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus It is true that Christian historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, but they have not made a really air tight case. NO contemporary historians mention him, which is odd if he really had a very large following and was condemned for sedition. It is a matter of indifference in my view whether he existed or not. The myth (in literary sense) as it relates to the human condition is deep enough on its own without needing a historical figure. One of the popes once famously said, that the myth (in the sense of untruth) has been very useful. --- Mr. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I hear somebody say I can find no proof that Jesus even existed. I think, yeah Ghengis Khan wasn't so great. I think it would fun to not believe he existed. Such an easy and fun way to do deal with whatever hatred and prejudice that I have for Ghenghis Khan that murderous bastard. Look up Tacitus, Livy, or Jocephus if you want historical reference to a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Actually Luke was a physician trained in Galatia by some accounts. There is actually no reference to him as a disciple. He may have just been a friend or associate with literary skills. Or didn't any of these peopl exist either? Not a christian here I'm just seeing the same neglect of reality that make the fundamentalist born again so puzzling I always think.Why do you need to believe that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. Lawson I believe that for a person who grew up in a developed county in the last 80 years the assimilation of some of the principles of science are a given. Even spirituality often uses uses proof systems that appear to be empirical to some degree. It is only after proffered evidence is show to be lacking does the rejection of all science usually take place IME. Even the New Testament tries to build a case for Jesus' divinity based on the performance of physical miracles witnessed and reported by numbers of people. It surprised me on a re-read in the last few years how much time is spent trying to make this case. There is much more time spent on the miracles than any of his presentation of ethical philosophy which he gets so much undeserved credit for IMO. speaking of evidence, I can't find any at all that the fellow even existed, much less his divinity. one day I just looked inside myself and asked myself where is the proof that such a person Jesus ever existed? and I have yet to find any. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
There is a lot of talk in the history of philosophy about the connection between conception and perception. Psychology has taken up the topic in some detail. I appreciate your point about choosing our attention. I believe that my happiness is maintained by what I pay attention to and what I ignore. It is a balance because you have to include some stuff that might just bite you in the butt later if left unattended. Also life has some stuff like death of loved ones that must be experienced pretty fully IMO to make my life complete. It doesn't exactly make me happy but sometimes pain is worth feeling rather than running away from. I take it case by case. I have learned not to accept the pain that my imagination can conjure up about loved ones. If you have ever hung with a cancer survivor you learn how to choose your worries wisely. I used to enjoy mixing my perceptions with the conception of a creator so I know it's charms. These days I am happy just to do my best to pay attention to what nourishes me which is mostly stuff that makes me happy, but not always. I'm sure I have plenty of other conceptions that shape my perceptions even without a the God concept. But I'm trying to keep it as simple as I can. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
http://www.unleashingthewench.com/images/domebrdrd2.jpg Don't know if the image will show up for online readers, but the link above leads to an image that all of us are familiar with. It pertains to the concepts below. I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Duveyoung wrote: I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? No, but I love the picture. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
It's a woodcut from a book from the 1800's. IIRC the artist is unknown. On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Duveyoung wrote: http://www.unleashingthewench.com/images/domebrdrd2.jpg Don't know if the image will show up for online readers, but the link above leads to an image that all of us are familiar with. It pertains to the concepts below. I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? Edg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Duveyoung wrote: I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? No, but I love the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_Woodcut http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-flammarion-woodcut/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
My guess on love, truth, and beauty's evolutionary purpose (as well as the notion of God, which may be a synthesis of love beauty and truth) is that all of them have to do with right-brain activity and, more importantly, with uniting the two halves of the brain, that is, with effecting communications between the two halves through the mid-brain--giving a kind of three-dimensionality to our notion of being conscious and alive. In contrast, a fish has no mid-brain. So his notion that he is alive comes from the sensory input of water pressure as he is turning left and right slightly as he swims. I noted in another post that a fish out of water is a Godless fish. It may be that our notion of an external God is left over from our fish days. --- Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.unleashingthewench.com/images/domebrdrd2.jpg Don't know if the image will show up for online readers, but the link above leads to an image that all of us are familiar with. It pertains to the concepts below. I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Vaj wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Duveyoung wrote: I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? No, but I love the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_Woodcut http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-flammarion-woodcut/ Thanks, Vaj. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess on love, truth, and beauty's evolutionary purpose (as well as the notion of God, which may be a synthesis of love beauty and truth) is that all of them have to do with right-brain activity and, more importantly, with uniting the two halves of the brain, that is, with effecting communications between the two halves through the mid-brain--giving a kind of three-dimensionality to our notion of being conscious and alive. In contrast, a fish has no mid-brain. So his notion that he is alive comes from the sensory input of water pressure as he is turning left and right slightly as he swims. I noted in another post that a fish out of water is a Godless fish. It may be that our notion of an external God is left over from our fish days. --- Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.unleashingthewench.com/images/domebrdrd2.jpg Don't know if the image will show up for online readers, but the link above leads to an image that all of us are familiar with. It pertains to the concepts below. I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Well said, and thank you it was Pliny I was thinking of although Livy mentions the christ cult also. Investigation and learning as much as is possible is, to me, more noble than sayingNope..No Jesusneither mundane or miraculous.File Him under 'Things only a child would believe' along with Leprechauns and Unicorns and Compassionate Conservatives. We don't need to do that with Buddha or Hannibal or Lief Erickson. Looking into the past is like looking at a newspaper.. You can't take it for granted that the newpapers is conveying unsullied truth. But you can read between the lines and get an idea of what might've happened. I'm glad I re-read my post right away and could delete it and do it over. I accidentally said 'Bocephus' the first time. If every one would've seen that I'd have just unsubscribed in unredeemable shame. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's wikipedia on the historicity of jesus There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called Chrestus in Suetonius. Pliny condemned Christians as easily-led fools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus It is true that Christian historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, but they have not made a really air tight case. NO contemporary historians mention him, which is odd if he really had a very large following and was condemned for sedition. It is a matter of indifference in my view whether he existed or not. The myth (in literary sense) as it relates to the human condition is deep enough on its own without needing a historical figure. One of the popes once famously said, that the myth (in the sense of untruth) has been very useful. --- Mr. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I hear somebody say I can find no proof that Jesus even existed. I think, yeah Ghengis Khan wasn't so great. I think it would fun to not believe he existed. Such an easy and fun way to do deal with whatever hatred and prejudice that I have for Ghenghis Khan that murderous bastard. Look up Tacitus, Livy, or Jocephus if you want historical reference to a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Actually Luke was a physician trained in Galatia by some accounts. There is actually no reference to him as a disciple. He may have just been a friend or associate with literary skills. Or didn't any of these peopl exist either? Not a christian here I'm just seeing the same neglect of reality that make the fundamentalist born again so puzzling I always think.Why do you need to believe that? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. Lawson I believe that for a person who grew up in a developed county in the last 80 years the assimilation of some of the principles of science are a given. Even spirituality often uses uses proof systems that appear to be empirical to some degree. It is only after proffered evidence is show to be lacking does the rejection of all science usually take place IME. Even the New Testament tries to build a case for Jesus' divinity based on the performance of physical miracles witnessed and reported by numbers of people. It surprised me on a re-read in the last few years how much time is spent trying to make this case. There is much more time spent on the miracles than any of his presentation of ethical philosophy which he gets so much undeserved credit for IMO. speaking of evidence, I can't find any at all that the fellow even existed, much less his divinity. one day I just looked inside myself and asked myself where is the proof that such a person Jesus ever existed? and I have yet to find any. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
In what sense is the distinction between internal and external still valid in Unity or any state after? It should be merely a heuristic by that time in my estimation. --- matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess on love, truth, and beauty's evolutionary purpose (as well as the notion of God, which may be a synthesis of love beauty and truth) is that all of them have to do with right-brain activity and, more importantly, with uniting the two halves of the brain, that is, with effecting communications between the two halves through the mid-brain--giving a kind of three-dimensionality to our notion of being conscious and alive. In contrast, a fish has no mid-brain. So his notion that he is alive comes from the sensory input of water pressure as he is turning left and right slightly as he swims. I noted in another post that a fish out of water is a Godless fish. It may be that our notion of an external God is left over from our fish days. --- Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.unleashingthewench.com/images/domebrdrd2.jpg Don't know if the image will show up for online readers, but the link above leads to an image that all of us are familiar with. It pertains to the concepts below. I've tried my best to discover the name of the artist -- anyone know? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Stu wrote: Love, truth and beauty is the recognition of this harmony around us. They are part of nature, its part of us. No supernatural stuff need apply. Even a hardened materialist can appreciate the organic unity of these ideals. Edg: You know those Necker cubes where the diagram of a box shifts perspectives back and forth before your eyes -- with the brain being challenged to mindfully hold one of two perspectives? That's the process of enlightenment to me -- you just suddenly flip to the other POV. Blake would approve, eh? And this is echoed in the adages of the masses such as Fish or cut bait, Stand for something or fall for anything, and/or Do you see the glass as half full or half empty. Note that communal wisdom underlines the natural ability of all folks to DIRECT ONE'S ATTENTION. The appreciation of beauty is obviously not so hard wired that it prevents us from seeing ugliness. I remember taking my children onto my lap when they were crying or pissed off, and I'd usually be able to tweak their minds such that they began to laugh even while their tears or their clenched fists were still griddle hot processes. Like that, beauty is always there, but the secret of life is that ugliness is as valuable as beauty. Yeah, Shiva's needed to dance a jig -- gotta have a destruction phase to progression. In Art there's photorealistic works that amaze one with the exquisite gem edges, leashed iridescence, and shiny glintings, and we swoon. Generally missed by all who view such an artwork is that using one's eyes to see creates just such an artwork -- looking at the back of one's hand is just such an experience with its 3000 lines per inch detail, its 10,000 hues seen, its astounding depth of view, its perfect structures, anatomies, and sense of light -- and, ITS REAL! Flip onto that perspective 24/7, eh? -- ya think it might be a mental technique that would evolve ya? I laugh that there's all these videos games out there that are straining to achieve realism, yet, every kid has reality smacking his face like bugs on a windshield on a dark road in mid-summer Iowa -- like Huxley's birds calling Attention! in his dystopia Island. Smack, smack, smack. Heaven is right there in our faces down to the neenee-nana-nanosecond. Each view, each sound, each report from any sense is as rich as, well, as rich as God could create. Try flipping into God consciousness -- you can do it just like being able to see a Necker cube change. I think anyone has this ability to suddenly shift into ephiphany at ANY MOMENT, caused by ANY INPUT. 'Course, there's no such thing as input, but you know what I mean. Edg Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
I liked the explanation of the fish, knowing itself because it moves through water-- so very much like the individual ego. Regarding Unity or some such, I've heard it described like this: the usual experience we have is differentiation predominating, everything separate, but in Unity, the differences can still be experienced but unity is predominant. in such a state, the difference between internal and external is more degree than absolute, more wave than particle, or so I've heard... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what sense is the distinction between internal and external still valid in Unity or any state after? It should be merely a heuristic by that time in my estimation. --- matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. Rather than a God worshipped as if outside us, the exact same, clearly defined energy is then found within us. It is a trippy feeling, so much so that it even creeps me out a little bit. If I wasn't able to experience it, I wouldn't believe it. Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, all there, all here. now here = nowhere.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I liked the explanation of the fish, knowing itself because it moves through water-- so very much like the individual ego. Regarding Unity or some such, I've heard it described like this: the usual experience we have is differentiation predominating, everything separate, but in Unity, the differences can still be experienced but unity is predominant. in such a state, the difference between internal and external is more degree than absolute, more wave than particle, or so I've heard... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: In what sense is the distinction between internal and external still valid in Unity or any state after? It should be merely a heuristic by that time in my estimation. --- matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Larry wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. This is how Shankara describes in his nondual stages, from the POV of Unity: pratyahara : seeing the 'self' in objects of senses and thereby submerging the mind (manas) into consciousness (chiti), dharana wherever the mind goes, seeing Brahman there and holding the mind therein, dhyana : 'I am the very Brahman by such vrtti remaining without any object of concentration (niralambana), grantor of supreme joy, samadhi : becoming free of all transmutations (nirvikAra), maintaining the vrtti of being identical with Brahman, then forgetting the very vrtti. Needless to say, this is quite different from how Patanjali sees things! However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. There is a sense that one becomes the center of ones own mandala and all items in the field of awareness are unified elements that have a relation to your energetic manifestation of universal chiti. At the level of unity, thought takes on a very different role. When I hear someone making a claim of Unity, one of the things I'll listen for is how they integrate thought from their nondual POV. The analogy one of my Bonpo masters gave was it's like watching fish move within water.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. Can you please tell where it says Ramana Maharishi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva? I am curious why you say this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Larry wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. This is how Shankara describes in his nondual stages, from the POV of Unity: pratyahara : seeing the 'self' in objects of senses and thereby submerging the mind (manas) into consciousness (chiti), dharana wherever the mind goes, seeing Brahman there and holding the mind therein, dhyana : 'I am the very Brahman by such vrtti remaining without any object of concentration (niralambana), grantor of supreme joy, samadhi : becoming free of all transmutations (nirvikAra), maintaining the vrtti of being identical with Brahman, then forgetting the very vrtti. Needless to say, this is quite different from how Patanjali sees things! However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. There is a sense that one becomes the center of ones own mandala and all items in the field of awareness are unified elements that have a relation to your energetic manifestation of universal chiti. At the level of unity, thought takes on a very different role. When I hear someone making a claim of Unity, one of the things I'll listen for is how they integrate thought from their nondual POV. The analogy one of my Bonpo masters gave was it's like watching fish move within water. More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:34 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Larry wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. This is how Shankara describes in his nondual stages, from the POV of Unity: pratyahara : seeing the 'self' in objects of senses and thereby submerging the mind (manas) into consciousness (chiti), dharana wherever the mind goes, seeing Brahman there and holding the mind therein, dhyana : 'I am the very Brahman by such vrtti remaining without any object of concentration (niralambana), grantor of supreme joy, samadhi : becoming free of all transmutations (nirvikAra), maintaining the vrtti of being identical with Brahman, then forgetting the very vrtti. Needless to say, this is quite different from how Patanjali sees things! However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. There is a sense that one becomes the center of ones own mandala and all items in the field of awareness are unified elements that have a relation to your energetic manifestation of universal chiti. At the level of unity, thought takes on a very different role. When I hear someone making a claim of Unity, one of the things I'll listen for is how they integrate thought from their nondual POV. The analogy one of my Bonpo masters gave was it's like watching fish move within water. More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. They are actually using it to describe a certain type of integration, and the description does follow the experience, as it has to do not only with integration of the movement of thoughts (as opposed to silence) but other phenomenon as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
---Sure. Ramana was devoted to the Arunachala Hill, a murti of the static form of Shiva . (p.2 Bhagavan Sri Ramana, A Pictorial Biography, published by Sri V.S. Ramanan, President, Sri Ramanasramam). Bhagavan spoke these words: (p.1): Siva, the Lord Supreme whom all adore, Us'd once His trident in a mighty act of Grace; That trident He made in times of yore, Proclaims for e'er Tiruchili a sacred place. In Necklet of Nine Gems, Bhagavan is quoted as saying: To rescue me--born of virtuous Sundara and Sunari in the holy town of Tiruchili, seat of Bhuminatheswara--from this barren worldly life, He raised me to His state that His Heart might so rejoice, the immanence of Siva so shine forth, and the Self flourish. Such is Arunachala, famous throughout the universe!'. (page 1). In Marital Garland of Letters, his transcribed words are: From my home Thou didst entice me, then stealing into my heart didst draw me gently into Thine, such is Thy Grace, O Arunachala. (p. 17). Bhagavan saw the Arunachala Hill for the first time in 1896, and then later said From here Jnana Sambadha beheld the peak of Arunagiri and sang verses out of excess joy and installed an image of Arunacheleswara in the same spot. (p. 21). Then, Bhagavan wrote out (in his own handwriting) a quote of Saint Sambandha: On the hill Arunachala, little animals like deer, bears, and pigs along with big ones like elephants roam about fearlessly. Here Lord Arunachala abides as Supreme Knowledge, santified with the Holy name Annamalai, and blesses His devotes with his characteriscally unfailing grace by removing their shortcomings. Then, at the last stage of journey to Arunachala, Bhagavan (then Venkataraman), entered the Arunacheleswara Temple and beheld the Arunacheleswara Lingam. The editor (p 24) states, As though the Father was thus preparing to welcome his 'beloved son ', Venkataraman walked straight into the inmost shrine and addressed Arunachaleswara thus: I have come to Thee at Thy behst. Thy will be done. The foregoing thus provides a brief set of statements in Bhagavan's words attesting to the fact that one can be devoted to a God - a Deity, even after realizing the Self. Such devotion by no means implies a state of dualistic ignorance. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, netineti3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor matrixmonitor@ wrote: --External Gods may still be worshipped after Brahman Realization (external as Brahman, nondifferent); since Ramakrishna was devoted to Kali before and after Realization, and Ramana Maharshi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva. Can you please tell where it says Ramana Maharishi was devoted to Arunachala Shiva? I am curious why you say this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Vaj wrote: samadhi : becoming free of all transmutations (nirvikAra), maintaining the vrtti of being identical with Brahman, then forgetting the ry vrtti. Lawson wrote: More like water within water. From what I've read, the word Samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanishads upon which Sankara has commented. Read more: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Wed, Jul 23 2003 11:26 pm Subject: Samadhi http://tinyurl.com/272dpe According to Shankara, duality is only temporarily obliterated in Samadhi. Duality reappears when one comes out of yoga enstasis and the reason why duality persists is because false knowledge has not been removed. The attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi cannot therefore be the cause of liberation. Samadhi: 1. Sanskrit (Saúmaúdhi) n. Jap., sanmai or zanmai 2. Nirvana, Parinirvana 3. from the root word 'Sam', to establish, make firm. 4. A conscious experience that lies beyond waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. 5. A non-meditative meditative mental equipose. Newsgroups: alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan, talk.religion.buddhism,alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy From: Lawson English Date: Wed, May 30 2007 3:16 pm Subject: Re: The Mechanics of Samadhi and the fundamental luminosity of the mind http://tinyurl.com/ysm9le Selectively chosen to ignore all rseearch on TM dated after 1980 or so and the one source it cites after that time isn't even original research but itself a survey of research on many different techniques of meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I have heard, UC is recognition of Self in another object (person/place/thing) . . . as UC matures, recognition becomes more frequent and the 'scope' of the object expands . . . till entire universe can be appreciated as Self. However - in BC the fullness of 'inside' and 'outside' collide and that inside/outside or subject/object distinction becomes only a matter of practicality. Also, in BC the Self is gone because there is no sense of anything that is non Self, no inside/outside, no subject/object. Like CC, UC feels very natural and a normal way for a human being to live. However, in BC there is absolutely no doubt that something really big happened, things are really different . . for one thing, you are no longer a human being - and That does not feel natural. feels completely natural in BC is what I heard somewhere. The UC thing still has an illusory Self to see in other objects. In BC all that is gone. No longer a human being? What is that human being? Who told us that is what we are/were? Seems more natural *not* to be a human being is what I heard someplace.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More like water within water. Different currents have a different character, but its all water. Lawson sounds like three's a crowd.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Sure. Ramana was devoted to the Arunachala Hill, a murti of the static form of Shiva . (p.2 Bhagavan Sri Ramana, A Pictorial Biography, published by Sri V.S. Ramanan, President, Sri Ramanasramam). Bhagavan spoke these words: (p.1): Siva, the Lord Supreme whom all adore, Us'd once His trident in a mighty act of Grace; That trident He made in times of yore, Proclaims for e'er Tiruchili a sacred place. describes the procewss and the diety perfectly. In Necklet of Nine Gems, Bhagavan is quoted as saying: To rescue me--born of virtuous Sundara and Sunari in the holy town of Tiruchili, seat of Bhuminatheswara--from this barren worldly life, He raised me to His state that His Heart might so rejoice, the immanence of Siva so shine forth, and the Self flourish. Such is Arunachala, famous throughout the universe!'. (page 1). In Marital Garland of Letters, his transcribed words are: From my home Thou didst entice me, then stealing into my heart didst draw me gently into Thine, such is Thy Grace, O Arunachala. (p. 17). Bhagavan saw the Arunachala Hill for the first time in 1896, and then later said From here Jnana Sambadha beheld the peak of Arunagiri and sang verses out of excess joy and installed an image of Arunacheleswara in the same spot. (p. 21). Then, Bhagavan wrote out (in his own handwriting) a quote of Saint Sambandha: On the hill Arunachala, little animals like deer, bears, and pigs along with big ones like elephants roam about fearlessly. Here Lord Arunachala abides as Supreme Knowledge, santified with the Holy name Annamalai, and blesses His devotes with his characteriscally unfailing grace by removing their shortcomings. Then, at the last stage of journey to Arunachala, Bhagavan (then Venkataraman), entered the Arunacheleswara Temple and beheld the Arunacheleswara Lingam. The editor (p 24) states, As though the Father was thus preparing to welcome his 'beloved son ', Venkataraman walked straight into the inmost shrine and addressed Arunachaleswara thus: I have come to Thee at Thy behst. Thy will be done. The foregoing thus provides a brief set of statements in Bhagavan's words attesting to the fact that one can be devoted to a God - a Deity, even after realizing the Self. Such devotion by no means implies a state of dualistic ignorance. Nice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would think it would have something to do with how enjoying life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not see beauty were more likely to say, What the fuck, and give up. He's an existentialist, or so he says...* Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them. Wikipedia
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
that statement about existentialism is a direct consequence of Sartre's basic assumption: Existence precedes essence. In other words, he regards existence as hte source of reality, not consciousness. a --- BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would think it would have something to do with how enjoying life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not see beauty were more likely to say, What the fuck, and give up. He's an existentialist, or so he says...* Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them. Wikipedia Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
This is a great topic for many reasons for me. At the core it discusses how we engage family members or friends in philosophical debate and then it expressed, very well, some ideas I find inspiring. What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would think it would have something to do with how enjoying life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not see beauty were more likely to say, What the fuck, and give up. I can't speak for other evolutionists but I do accept that the evolutionary theory is the best understanding we have of our origins. I don't believe that human happiness has to have a reason. It doesn't seem to really be a product of the gene's need to reproduce since so often the desire to have kids beyond someone's means brings unhappiness and struggle. Many miserable bastards seem to do quite well in surviving and perpetuating their genes. For me the choice of joy at natural or man made beauty is a perk of our wonderfully aware brains and imaginations. I'm not sure that it has to have a reason or that one can really be given. It may be an offshoot of our style of functioning without purpose or evolutionary value. It is not a universal or we would see people outside at sunset time instead of glued to sitcoms. OTOH we also were given an awareness of our mortality and inevitable death with our awareness and this may also just be an artifact of consciousness that isn't so charming. He's an existentialist, or so he says...* Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them. Wikipedia I find this so inspiring. It lifts my spirits the way scriptures used to. Well, I thought a moment, and said; Hey Cyril, I know the answer to that question. Of course family history plays in here as an unknown. But if I were to hazard a guess it might be that your assertion of knowing the answer to one of life's mystery with surety closed the door on further sharing of perspectives. He was approaching the question with a bit of epistemological humility and you were approaching it as a knower. You may not have meant it that way or maybe you did. But I also find that people who claim to have such answers with a sense of surety turn me off in a discussion. Perhaps there were too many buttons of past lectures to get beyond the family dynamics but it also might be possible to come from a place of your own appropriate humility concerning life's grandest questions. I'll bet you have your own version of not knowing it all in these matters and you might find it allows for a discussion among equals. Humans pondering their place in the world together instead of one who questions and one who knows. Your answer had some poetic beauty on its own merit. It was not an answer but was a sharing of how you think about it. It included many implied pre-suppositions that your brother doesn't share (nor I), so it couldn't really be accepted as an answer by him. I have been on both sides of this kind of exchange so often. I have to admit that it is a lot more comfortable and produces more conversations now that I don't know so much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was visiting my brother recently viewing some of Nature's resplendent beauty in Nevada, and my Harvard Law school graduated, atheist brother ask me; One thing my professors could never tell me is why we experience joy and appreciation when we see the beauties of nature? Well, I thought a moment, and said; Hey Cyril, I know the answer to that question. Well much to his chagrin I delivered this answer, The flower is a reflection (and a clue) as to what is hidden underneath... Well, he was beginning to feel a little uncomfortable at this point and ask his wife to shut me up, so I continued. ..and the reason WE feel joy and appreciation at the sight of beauty is, a portion of that beauty is hidden within us as well (as our own self) and as such, nature (in this case a flower) functions as a reminder, inspiring a memory of our long lost spiritual home within. Well it was pretty quiet for the rest of the day, some liberal atheists don't like to entertain opposing points of view, especially if it challenges the whole foundation of their lives.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: An answer to the question.
Billy, Do you really think your brother wanted you to answer a question his Harvard professors couldn't ? He probably patronized you by posing the question and never intended to appreciate your SCI-like answer. Even though your answer was quite informative, a less direct response from you might have furthered the enjoyable tone of the day. For instance, you might have agreed with his observation, and thanked him for the opportunity to visit him and share the beauty of nature with him, instead of giving him an SCI lesson, which probably reminded him that while he was a Harvard Law grad, his brother had a reflexive, arrogant intellectual construct that by default always sells the ideas of SCI, and meditation. I wish you well with your relationship with him. Had the rest of the day gone well, a polite removal from his company for time to meditate would have done much perhaps for his appreciation of you and what you consider imprortant - e.g. meditation / SCI as a part of your life. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was visiting my brother recently viewing some of Nature's resplendent beauty in Nevada, and my Harvard Law school graduated, atheist brother ask me; One thing my professors could never tell me is why we experience joy and appreciation when we see the beauties of nature? Well, I thought a moment, and said; Hey Cyril, I know the answer to that question. Well much to his chagrin I delivered this answer, The flower is a reflection (and a clue) as to what is hidden underneath... Well, he was beginning to feel a little uncomfortable at this point and ask his wife to shut me up, so I continued. ..and the reason WE feel joy and appreciation at the sight of beauty is, a portion of that beauty is hidden within us as well (as our own self) and as such, nature (in this case a flower) functions as a reminder, inspiring a memory of our long lost spiritual home within. Well it was pretty quiet for the rest of the day, some liberal atheists don't like to entertain opposing points of view, especially if it challenges the whole foundation of their lives.:-)
