Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Xeno, regarding others' saying that you're not empathetic nor sympathetic, some neuroscientists might lay that at the door of your mirror neurons and their condition and functioning. Dr. Daniel J. Siegel might blame what he calls the resonance circuits which include neural networks not only in the brain but also around the heart and throughout the whole body. For Dr. Siegel's clients, sometimes simply understanding that one's personality is not defective or lacking can be enough to start the healing process. In addition he has a toolbox of mindfulness techniques to help a person develop their brain in ways that have not yet happened for one reason or another. I think work such as Dr. Siegel's is very good news anyway, but especially given that the recently published DSM5 has come under fire, even from the director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Here is but one of many Huffington Post articles about the whole mental health care crisis. Any exploration that can ease suffering and increase human and planetary well being is in itself a sign of progress IMHO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-smoller/dsm-5-mental-health_b_3293159.html BTW, a fellow over on the other group, Batgap, recently posted about a book called The Spiritual Gift of Madness. Did you know there's something called the mad pride movement? PS Watch for the return of the Twinkies on July 15! From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. However, Robin's posts in his discussions with others-- including those with you--are full of evidence that he is both empathetic and sympathetic, as well as loving. He's also easily outraged by dishonesty and cruelty. He's tremendously emotional, as Ann pointed out to you. She has had experience of these traits up close and personal, but they're also clear as crystal just from his posts. The idea that because you have sociopathic traits, therefore Robin might have them as well is about as absurd as any I've seen on this forum. That's why *I* hypothesize that your idea--or at least the idea to put that hypothesis in your posts--has to do with your resentment that Robin gave you a hard time about your philosophy rather than with a speculation you've made on the basis of any actual evidence or intellectual analysis. The rest of this is equally nonsensical. I'm not even going to try to comment on it. My hypothesis that Robin might be a sociopath was bases on 1) His past behaviour. 2) That he came on very friendly in the beginning, but later on, with some of us, seemed strangely invasive. 3) That some who knew him (not all) still feel he is the same Robin of old. That a person shows empathy and sympathy is not a sign a person is not a sociopath because sociopaths are reputed to be very good at mimicking these emotions even though they do not experience them, they are ultimate chameleons. This is one reason they seem so charming and disarming. They can read people's emotional state like an open book and respond in kind. I reread some of Robin's posts to Curtis. I find them downright creepy. Robin is extremely intelligent, but I do not feel the way he communicates is in the service of betterment. I have learned more from reading your posts, Judy, and Curtis's posts, and Barry's posts than Robin's posts, in fact just about everyone's posts here. There is something eternally discomfiting about Robin's style of discourse. For those who thought he was a great master and willingly subjected themselves to this man, that is fine with me, but those of us who think something is wrong with this fellow, there is some comfort in numbers. I revise my view of him. A Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. This is of course an hypothesis, awaiting professional diagnosis. No one has to believe it is true. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemais...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:43 PM, obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: That should be clear enough dear Share - I'm accusing Xeno of hiding under his garb of self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy. Because he has had no experience he has to hide under the Neo-advaitic garbage which is revealed by his malicious agenda. How can I ever accuse anyone of not having emotions - calling him a robot so he can look at his bullshit philosophy and hypocrisy. Hey Ravi, I think I will agree with you. My experience is no different than it was when I was 4 years old, though perhaps, according to you, I may be stupider, although that might not be true because I learned to read after that. At least that enables me to read your posts with some degree of dull comprehension, and fortunately for me, it does not take a lot of comprehension to do that. I admire the simplicity and direct, unambiguous language of your posts. I am delighted you do not have the extensive vocabulary of someone like Shakespeare. *Shakespeare rolls his eyes from his grave. Excuse me. Please excuse my interfering, but I truly think this post deserves a Mother Tongue Lashing, Ravi! Yes it sure does dear Obba, very easy to make fun of Xeno and his invulnerable, imperturbable, self-effacive, self-abnegating, Neo-Advaita based delusional fantasies. God I wish I can get just 10 minutes of time with Xeno face to face - he will totally feel humiliated, why is this existence so cruel to my innocent, playful desire? This harsh, cunning and unforgiving world surely doesn't deserve my innocent purity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. Whereas Indians are so retarded as not to be able to realize that no one on this form is Norwegian. We've got one German living in Norway, and Card, who is Finnish, neither of whom were even being discussed in this email. I also couldn't help but notice that you (possibly representative of the general ball-lessness of guys from Indian) could not even deal with the direct question from Share below. Pretty pathetic. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemaister@... wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Barry - I only slept for an hour and am in a really bad mood, please don't irritate me OK? What the fuck is wrong with you Europeans? Brits and their idiotic rain, Norwegians with their stupid sweaty balls and now you Dutch with your panhandling - WTF? Do you want my attention - is that what it is? Please don't copy me, come up with something original, something intelligent. I will get back to you - how about that? Just stop being an attention slut. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. Whereas Indians are so retarded as not to be able to realize that no one on this form is Norwegian. We've got one German living in Norway, and Card, who is Finnish, neither of whom were even being discussed in this email. I also couldn't help but notice that you (possibly representative of the general ball-lessness of guys from Indian) could not even deal with the direct question from Share below. Pretty pathetic. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemaister@... wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
FYI, there are two things that help me get sleepy, a really strong cup of coffee gets me buzzed, and about an hour later I am ready to crash. Also, a candy bar, or something loaded with sugar. Same effect as the coffee, only faster. Just passing these on, as I cannot think of a worse suffering for myself, than trying to function when sleep-deprived. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Barry - I only slept for an hour and am in a really bad mood, please don't irritate me OK? What the fuck is wrong with you Europeans? Brits and their idiotic rain, Norwegians with their stupid sweaty balls and now you Dutch with your panhandling - WTF? Do you want my attention - is that what it is? Please don't copy me, come up with something original, something intelligent. I will get back to you - how about that? Just stop being an attention slut. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. Whereas Indians are so retarded as not to be able to realize that no one on this form is Norwegian. We've got one German living in Norway, and Card, who is Finnish, neither of whom were even being discussed in this email. I also couldn't help but notice that you (possibly representative of the general ball-lessness of guys from Indian) could not even deal with the direct question from Share below. Pretty pathetic. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemaister@ wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I was just messing with Tantra Guru Barry there, it's the opposite - if I don't sleep I'm more high because my mystical manic energy isn't absorbed by the sleep. I think I can easily manage a few days without sleep - but not a very good idea. It's different for me - I still use Coffee but Coffee helps calm my excess Vata and I can go to sleep soon. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:42 AM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** FYI, there are two things that help me get sleepy, a really strong cup of coffee gets me buzzed, and about an hour later I am ready to crash. Also, a candy bar, or something loaded with sugar. Same effect as the coffee, only faster. Just passing these on, as I cannot think of a worse suffering for myself, than trying to function when sleep-deprived. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Barry - I only slept for an hour and am in a really bad mood, please don't irritate me OK? What the fuck is wrong with you Europeans? Brits and their idiotic rain, Norwegians with their stupid sweaty balls and now you Dutch with your panhandling - WTF? Do you want my attention - is that what it is? Please don't copy me, come up with something original, something intelligent. I will get back to you - how about that? Just stop being an attention slut. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. Whereas Indians are so retarded as not to be able to realize that no one on this form is Norwegian. We've got one German living in Norway, and Card, who is Finnish, neither of whom were even being discussed in this email. I also couldn't help but notice that you (possibly representative of the general ball-lessness of guys from Indian) could not even deal with the direct question from Share below. Pretty pathetic. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemaister@ wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
OK - Glad to hear it. It sounds like you are probably sensitive to lunar light also. I sure am. There is something they call a 'Super Moon' (which sounds to me, like something you do out a car window...), outside now - very full and bright. Very energetic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: I was just messing with Tantra Guru Barry there, it's the opposite - if I don't sleep I'm more high because my mystical manic energy isn't absorbed by the sleep. I think I can easily manage a few days without sleep - but not a very good idea. It's different for me - I still use Coffee but Coffee helps calm my excess Vata and I can go to sleep soon. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:42 AM, doctordumbass@... no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** FYI, there are two things that help me get sleepy, a really strong cup of coffee gets me buzzed, and about an hour later I am ready to crash. Also, a candy bar, or something loaded with sugar. Same effect as the coffee, only faster. Just passing these on, as I cannot think of a worse suffering for myself, than trying to function when sleep-deprived. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Barry - I only slept for an hour and am in a really bad mood, please don't irritate me OK? What the fuck is wrong with you Europeans? Brits and their idiotic rain, Norwegians with their stupid sweaty balls and now you Dutch with your panhandling - WTF? Do you want my attention - is that what it is? Please don't copy me, come up with something original, something intelligent. I will get back to you - how about that? Just stop being an attention slut. On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Card - don't fuck with me OK? If I had to take a wild guess I would think Norwegians are a bunch of idiots with sweaty balls and with a weird fascination for the morbid. Whereas Indians are so retarded as not to be able to realize that no one on this form is Norwegian. We've got one German living in Norway, and Card, who is Finnish, neither of whom were even being discussed in this email. I also couldn't help but notice that you (possibly representative of the general ball-lessness of guys from Indian) could not even deal with the direct question from Share below. Pretty pathetic. On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:29 PM, card cardemaister@ wrote: I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-kÃÆ'ülÃÆ'ä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?!
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. However, Robin's posts in his discussions with others-- including those with you--are full of evidence that he is both empathetic and sympathetic, as well as loving. He's also easily outraged by dishonesty and cruelty. He's tremendously emotional, as Ann pointed out to you. She has had experience of these traits up close and personal, but they're also clear as crystal just from his posts. The idea that because you have sociopathic traits, therefore Robin might have them as well is about as absurd as any I've seen on this forum. That's why *I* hypothesize that your idea--or at least the idea to put that hypothesis in your posts--has to do with your resentment that Robin gave you a hard time about your philosophy rather than with a speculation you've made on the basis of any actual evidence or intellectual analysis. The rest of this is equally nonsensical. I'm not even going to try to comment on it. My hypothesis that Robin might be a sociopath was bases on 1) His past behaviour. 2) That he came on very friendly in the beginning, but later on, with some of us, seemed strangely invasive. 3) That some who knew him (not all) still feel he is the same Robin of old. That a person shows empathy and sympathy is not a sign a person is not a sociopath because sociopaths are reputed to be very good at mimicking these emotions even though they do not experience them, they are ultimate chameleons. This is one reason they seem so charming and disarming. They can read people's emotional state like an open book and respond in kind. I reread some of Robin's posts to Curtis. I find them downright creepy. Robin is extremely intelligent, but I do not feel the way he communicates is in the service of betterment. I have learned more from reading your posts, Judy, and Curtis's posts, and Barry's posts than Robin's posts, in fact just about everyone's posts here. There is something eternally discomfiting about Robin's style of discourse. For those who thought he was a great master and willingly subjected themselves to this man, that is fine with me, but those of us who think something is wrong with this fellow, there is some comfort in numbers. I revise my view of him. A Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. This is of course an hypothesis, awaiting professional diagnosis. No one has to believe it is true. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them as more significant; you do not respond as if it were a joke. Your writing appears to me to have an excess of drama in the way you express yourself when you are using emotional words. This is not always the case, but with things that seem to be important to you, it does seem to be the case, to me at any rate. Regarding my 'philosophy', I am sure Robin did not appreciate it, nor I his. As for my consciousness, it has been pretty much the same since as long as I can remember (4 or 5 years old), so there is nothing remarkable there. There were some unusual experiences along the way, but I think those are mostly done with. Note that the statements herein are hypotheses, not facts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Much ado about nothing, Xeno. I found Robin to be pretty normal, based on his writing here. I did not see any irresponsibility or callousness, regarding any relationships he established here, either. For you to claim evidence of sociopathic tendencies, in him, or anyone else on FFL, is pretty far out there, on my pretty far out there scale. Anyway, you would have to be a grossly inept sociopath, to hang out on an Internet forum. The ones I've read about, and unfortunately known, always want something a lot more tangible, for free, like money, property, and goods, for example. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. However, Robin's posts in his discussions with others-- including those with you--are full of evidence that he is both empathetic and sympathetic, as well as loving. He's also easily outraged by dishonesty and cruelty. He's tremendously emotional, as Ann pointed out to you. She has had experience of these traits up close and personal, but they're also clear as crystal just from his posts. The idea that because you have sociopathic traits, therefore Robin might have them as well is about as absurd as any I've seen on this forum. That's why *I* hypothesize that your idea--or at least the idea to put that hypothesis in your posts--has to do with your resentment that Robin gave you a hard time about your philosophy rather than with a speculation you've made on the basis of any actual evidence or intellectual analysis. The rest of this is equally nonsensical. I'm not even going to try to comment on it. My hypothesis that Robin might be a sociopath was bases on 1) His past behaviour. 2) That he came on very friendly in the beginning, but later on, with some of us, seemed strangely invasive. 3) That some who knew him (not all) still feel he is the same Robin of old. That a person shows empathy and sympathy is not a sign a person is not a sociopath because sociopaths are reputed to be very good at mimicking these emotions even though they do not experience them, they are ultimate chameleons. This is one reason they seem so charming and disarming. They can read people's emotional state like an open book and respond in kind. I reread some of Robin's posts to Curtis. I find them downright creepy. Robin is extremely intelligent, but I do not feel the way he communicates is in the service of betterment. I have learned more from reading your posts, Judy, and Curtis's posts, and Barry's posts than Robin's posts, in fact just about everyone's posts here. There is something eternally discomfiting about Robin's style of discourse. For those who thought he was a great master and willingly subjected themselves to this man, that is fine with me, but those of us who think something is wrong with this fellow, there is some comfort in numbers. I revise my view of him. A Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. This is of course an hypothesis, awaiting professional diagnosis. No one has to believe it is true. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them as more significant; you do not respond as if it were a joke. Your writing appears to me to have an excess of drama in the way you express yourself when you are using emotional words. This is not always the case, but with things that seem to be important to you, it does seem to be the case, to me at any rate. Regarding my 'philosophy', I am sure Robin did not appreciate it, nor I his. As for my consciousness, it has been pretty much the same since as long as I can remember (4 or 5 years old), so there is nothing remarkable there. There were some unusual experiences along the way, but I think those are mostly done with. Note that the statements herein are hypotheses, not facts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I'm going to let DrD's reply speak for me. I continue to believe you got on this silly hostile track because you were stung by Robin's responses to you, plus your frustration at being unable to understand his posts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. However, Robin's posts in his discussions with others-- including those with you--are full of evidence that he is both empathetic and sympathetic, as well as loving. He's also easily outraged by dishonesty and cruelty. He's tremendously emotional, as Ann pointed out to you. She has had experience of these traits up close and personal, but they're also clear as crystal just from his posts. The idea that because you have sociopathic traits, therefore Robin might have them as well is about as absurd as any I've seen on this forum. That's why *I* hypothesize that your idea--or at least the idea to put that hypothesis in your posts--has to do with your resentment that Robin gave you a hard time about your philosophy rather than with a speculation you've made on the basis of any actual evidence or intellectual analysis. The rest of this is equally nonsensical. I'm not even going to try to comment on it. My hypothesis that Robin might be a sociopath was bases on 1) His past behaviour. 2) That he came on very friendly in the beginning, but later on, with some of us, seemed strangely invasive. 3) That some who knew him (not all) still feel he is the same Robin of old. That a person shows empathy and sympathy is not a sign a person is not a sociopath because sociopaths are reputed to be very good at mimicking these emotions even though they do not experience them, they are ultimate chameleons. This is one reason they seem so charming and disarming. They can read people's emotional state like an open book and respond in kind. I reread some of Robin's posts to Curtis. I find them downright creepy. Robin is extremely intelligent, but I do not feel the way he communicates is in the service of betterment. I have learned more from reading your posts, Judy, and Curtis's posts, and Barry's posts than Robin's posts, in fact just about everyone's posts here. There is something eternally discomfiting about Robin's style of discourse. For those who thought he was a great master and willingly subjected themselves to this man, that is fine with me, but those of us who think something is wrong with this fellow, there is some comfort in numbers. I revise my view of him. A Narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. This is of course an hypothesis, awaiting professional diagnosis. No one has to believe it is true. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them as more significant; you do not respond as if it were a joke. Your writing appears to me to have an excess of drama in the way you express yourself when you are using emotional words. This is not always the case, but with things that seem to be important to you, it does seem to be the case, to me at any rate. Regarding my 'philosophy', I am sure Robin did not appreciate it, nor I his. As for my consciousness, it has been pretty much the same since as long as I can remember (4 or 5 years old), so there is nothing remarkable there. There were some unusual experiences along the way, but I think those are mostly done with. Note that the statements herein are hypotheses, not facts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Thanks for this, Susan. I'm not a mom this time around and it's sweet to hear how it can be, even the crying and growling. Share From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. My own guesses at this is that women might have more pitocin, oxytocin/hormones circulating in their systems than males. I was given large doses of pitocin to intensify labor contractions years ago when delivering my children. WOw, it was amazing. I believe the effect was to create an even more intense than usual flood of birth hormones, which increase feelings of protectiveness, emotion, empathy and the need to nurture. For a few months after delivering, I actually cried each evening when watching the news - cause the criminals paraded on TV were all someone's child at one point, and how sad was that! I found myself growling like an animal from deep in my throat for a few times when out walking my child and feeling that a stranger might not be safe. So if women just start out with more of these hormones floating about, they will feel and behave differently. And maybe the effects of giving birth permanently enhance those emotions, I don't know. And maybe the real starting point for the differences is in the brain, which produces those hormones. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.' Ravi, for example, thinks I am pretty much of a robot, if I interpret what he says correctly. Your writing is filled with emotional words, which to me simply seem like projection, for I see the situations we 'discuss' usually as not a matter of emotion
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! Fine Ravi. I am shaking in my boots. So what else is new in your life, since I certainly am not?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: That should be clear enough dear Share - I'm accusing Xeno of hiding under his garb of self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy. Because he has had no experience he has to hide under the Neo-advaitic garbage which is revealed by his malicious agenda. How can I ever accuse anyone of not having emotions - calling him a robot so he can look at his bullshit philosophy and hypocrisy. Hey Ravi, I think I will agree with you. My experience is no different than it was when I was 4 years old, though perhaps, according to you, I may be stupider, although that might not be true because I learned to read after that. At least that enables me to read your posts with some degree of dull comprehension, and fortunately for me, it does not take a lot of comprehension to do that. I admire the simplicity and direct, unambiguous language of your posts. I am delighted you do not have the extensive vocabulary of someone like Shakespeare. On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: That should be clear enough dear Share - I'm accusing Xeno of hiding under his garb of self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy. Because he has had no experience he has to hide under the Neo-advaitic garbage which is revealed by his malicious agenda. How can I ever accuse anyone of not having emotions - calling him a robot so he can look at his bullshit philosophy and hypocrisy. Hey Ravi, I think I will agree with you. My experience is no different than it was when I was 4 years old, though perhaps, according to you, I may be stupider, although that might not be true because I learned to read after that. At least that enables me to read your posts with some degree of dull comprehension, and fortunately for me, it does not take a lot of comprehension to do that. I admire the simplicity and direct, unambiguous language of your posts. I am delighted you do not have the extensive vocabulary of someone like Shakespeare. *Shakespeare rolls his eyes from his grave. Excuse me. Please excuse my interfering, but I truly think this post deserves a Mother Tongue Lashing, Ravi! On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I have a concern, that is all. 1. Robin 'damaged' certain people in the past. 2. He has made statements to the effect he regrets having done this now. 3. Some accept these statements as 'true', and some as 'false'. 4. I am not sure that these statements are 'true'. 5. As a result of this, and as a result of my online interaction with him, I have suspicions concerning his motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way he writes. 6. Based on what Ann said, after reading an article written by a sociopath, my surmise that Robin might be a sociopath is probably mistaken. 7. That there might be some other professional diagnosis of his condition remains a possibility. 8. That condition might be classified as 'normal', or some other condition. 9. He seems to be seeking certain kinds of knowledge and an understanding of his past and current experience. 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. You are kidding, or you are no longer sane. It is quite reasonable. Now that Ann has piped in, my speculation no longer seems reasonable. Other things may seem more reasonable. Narcissism might be a better bet. But you know, probably for certain in your fantasy world, that I have no training to make that diagnosis. So, it remains a mere suspicion, a thought that passes within experience. That has to do with my own mind, not your mind. Your speculations are just as far out on the ledge. Why should your advice in this matter be of any concern? Ann knows far more about Robin. At one time, she must have had suspicions about Robin. Maybe all traces of those have left. But others still have those suspicions. How do we nail this down as fact?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.' Ravi, for example, thinks I am pretty much of a robot, if I interpret what he says correctly. Your writing is filled with emotional words, which to me simply seem like projection, for I see the situations we 'discuss' usually as not a matter of emotion or of feelings, except perhaps classical music. It is just the relationship of certain data, how it fits or does not fit together. Empathy has no part in it. I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them as more significant; you do not respond as if it were a joke. Your writing appears to me to have an excess of drama in the way you express yourself when you are using emotional words. This is not always the case, but with things that seem to be important to you, it does seem to be the case, to me at any rate. Regarding my 'philosophy', I am sure Robin did not appreciate it, nor I his. As for my consciousness, it has been pretty much the same since as long as I can remember (4 or 5 years old), so there is nothing remarkable there. There were some unusual experiences along the way, but I think those are mostly done with. Note
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.' Ravi, for example, thinks I am pretty much of a robot, if I interpret what he says correctly. Your writing is filled with emotional words, which to me simply seem like projection, for I see the situations we 'discuss' usually as not a matter of emotion or of feelings, except perhaps classical music. It is just the relationship of certain data, how it fits or does not fit together. Empathy has no part in it. I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
My own guesses at this is that women might have more pitocin, oxytocin/hormones circulating in their systems than males. I was given large doses of pitocin to intensify labor contractions years ago when delivering my children. WOw, it was amazing. I believe the effect was to create an even more intense than usual flood of birth hormones, which increase feelings of protectiveness, emotion, empathy and the need to nurture. For a few months after delivering, I actually cried each evening when watching the news - cause the criminals paraded on TV were all someone's child at one point, and how sad was that! I found myself growling like an animal from deep in my throat for a few times when out walking my child and feeling that a stranger might not be safe. So if women just start out with more of these hormones floating about, they will feel and behave differently. And maybe the effects of giving birth permanently enhance those emotions, I don't know. And maybe the real starting point for the differences is in the brain, which produces those hormones. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.' Ravi, for example, thinks I am pretty much of a robot, if I interpret what he says correctly. Your writing is filled with emotional words, which to me simply seem like projection, for I see the situations we 'discuss' usually as not a matter of emotion or of feelings, except perhaps classical music. It is just the relationship of certain data, how it fits or does not fit together. Empathy has no part in it. I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women empathized.' Ravi, for example, thinks I am pretty much of a robot, if I interpret what he says correctly. Your writing is filled with emotional words, which to me simply seem like projection, for I see the situations we 'discuss
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
That should be clear enough dear Share - I'm accusing Xeno of hiding under his garb of self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy. Because he has had no experience he has to hide under the Neo-advaitic garbage which is revealed by his malicious agenda. How can I ever accuse anyone of not having emotions - calling him a robot so he can look at his bullshit philosophy and hypocrisy. On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: (snip) I am told I am loving but not empathetic nor sympathetic. This is in fact, a sociopathic trait, at least as viewed by outside behaviour. This is one idea that led me to hypothesise that Robin might have these traits as well. However, Robin's posts in his discussions with others-- including those with you--are full of evidence that he is both empathetic and sympathetic, as well as loving. He's also easily outraged by dishonesty and cruelty. He's tremendously emotional, as Ann pointed out to you. She has had experience of these traits up close and personal, but they're also clear as crystal just from his posts. The idea that because you have sociopathic traits, therefore Robin might have them as well is about as absurd as any I've seen on this forum. That's why *I* hypothesize that your idea--or at least the idea to put that hypothesis in your posts--has to do with your resentment that Robin gave you a hard time about your philosophy rather than with a speculation you've made on the basis of any actual evidence or intellectual analysis. The rest of this is equally nonsensical. I'm not even going to try to comment on it. This might seem like a contradiction to a woman, to experience love but not empathy or sympathy - it seems to me women's emotional states penetrate much further into every aspect of their experience than men's. I think this is why Barry is able to yank your chain, as an illustration. While he proposes various scenarios that seem to have emotional value in them, for him there is probably little or no emotional value, and it is not a serious matter with him. But perhaps you take those prompts more seriously because of the way you are wired up and see them as more significant; you do not respond as if it were a joke. Your writing appears to me to have an excess of drama in the way you express yourself when you are using emotional words. This is not always the case, but with things that seem to be important to you, it does seem to be the case, to me at any rate. Regarding my 'philosophy', I am sure Robin did not appreciate it, nor I his. As for my consciousness, it has been pretty much the same since as long as I can remember (4 or 5 years old), so there is nothing remarkable there. There were some unusual experiences along the way, but I think those are mostly done with. Note that the statements herein are hypotheses, not facts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I'm afraid Ravi is a Sivu-külä (side-village)... LoL! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Ravi, how can a person have the characteristic of lacking emotions and at the same time be jealous, malicious and feel threatened?! From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Xeno - you bet your sorry, pathetic, robotic ass I think you are an unoriginal, unremarkable, unperceptive, boring robot. You can't even be sure you are a robot, as you remarked to Richard/Paligap. Judy's right - you are threatened by Robin, you are jealous of Robin - the fact that you keep dropping suggestions that he may be sociopathic or psychotic points to your malice. You were bested by Robin every time you had a discussion where he methodically ripped apart your pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist, neo-advaita, Adyashantic, self-effacing, self-abnegating philosophy and your hilarious, stupid spiritual experiences that have rendered you so unperceptive, inauthentic and boring. Robin's discussions here with various posters have no bearing to what happened 25 years, the fact that you think interactions on FFL compare to what happened in his cult is just pure dishonesty and malice. These characteristics of yours - lack of emotions, lack of remorse makes you, as I said before the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. But I'm neither dishonest nor malicious to ever suggest that. What a clueless idiot you are - OMFG !!! On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? I have no personal animosity toward Robin. Your surmise in this instance is incorrect. And this assertion of yours in no way removes my suspicions about your motives, which I cannot know directly but only infer from the way you write. What else could I say if I think this? I wish him well in his quest to become a better human being than he apparently was. This in no way removes my suspicions about his motives. Your attempt to inject malice into this discussion (post #347412) is an attempt to characterise the discussion on the basis of an emotional characteristic which I assure you I do not posses in this post or the previous ones in this thread. I don't believe you, sorry. I think you possess *exactly* those emotional characteristics. (snip) 10.He is very intelligent. My question is will he use that intelligence well in relation to others, for he did have adverse reactions from some on FFL who had online discussions with him. Your adverse reactions to his discussions with you among them. I would find your claim not to possess a malicious intent toward Robin more credible if you didn't keep making unpleasant comments about him long after your discussions with him were over, even when he's no longer around. I don't think you could make a solid case for his recriminations (wrong word, BTW) being a ruse if your life depended on it. I think your suspicions are inspired by the fact that he was not impressed by your philosophy or your claims about your experience of consciousness. Some news snippets concerning emotion in men and women: 'The real difference in emotion between the sexes might lie in emotional intelligence rather than feelings of anger, sadness or depression. Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions.' 'Instead of experiencing the emotions of others, the men in these studies simply recognized these emotions, and then started searching for solutions. The rational parts of their brains trumped emotion, with men switching into problem-solving mode as the women
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Sigh.. Context 1: MMY was asked a serious question from his perspective and gave a serious, albeit, a very surprising answer (to him, it appeared to me). Context 2: MMY was asked a question about personal conduct that he didn't want to answer and gave a copout answer about how such things weren't his concern because he never married (he's a monk, y'know) You can read into my interpretation of events whatever you like, and obviously you do. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I think the context of the response is different. The questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was being asked for personal advice, which he generally didn't like giving, from what I could tell. Ah, thank you, Lawson. Another clue in the eternal struggle to understand the mind of the True Believer. For all their talk of truth, TMers aren't really *seeking* it. They're just seeking easy answers that put their minds to sleep while they nod and say, Yup...that sure sounds right, Maharishi. Thanks for clarifying that for us...in this context. Now I understand why TB nitpickers get so batshit crazy when they feel that someone has taken something they said out of context. It's like How DARE you suggest that me acting like a harpy and hurling insults at someone is the SAME as them hurling insults at me. It ISN'T. Not, not, not, not not! You *have* to consider the CONTEXT. This other person was sug- gesting that my statement wasn't RIGHT, and not the very definition of 'truth,' and not a *fact* that everyone should hear and *have* to believe. So they're WRONG and I'm RIGHT. THAT is the all-important *context* in which this has to be seen. My statement is correct and *must* be seen as the authoritarian thought-stopper it was, whereas the other person's statement was wrong, and thus *deserved* my insults. :-) I'm just having fun with you being comfortable with Maharishi having declared himself *both* a householder *and* a monk, Lawson. It's a perfect example of the bipolar, immune-to-cognitive-dissonance reasoning of the True Believer. Of *course* Maharishi was *both* a householder and a monk...it all depends on the *context*, which is a synonym for 'what *I* wanted to believe' in each situation. :-) Similarly you are probably comfortable with other examples of the creative uses of 'context' as a thought-stopper. Of *course* the same TMSP program that claims it causes 'invincibility' is so fragile that it might be threatened by the presence in the domes of a few people who have 'seen other teachers.' Of *course* Maharishi was justified in denouncing siddhis as literally 'the worst practice you could ever consider for your spiritual development' in 1968 but then turn around and sell them for thousands of dollars a pop a decade later. Of *course* we can still refer to practicing them as 'flying' when no one has ever flown. It's all about CONTEXT. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Oh dear Ann - thank you for this. This is my intuitive and personal understanding of Robin - glad to hear from someone like you who has been in close quarters with him. I think Robin in addition to his brilliance, charm is very sensitive and loving and he loves and he suffers. I may reply to Xeno - but one of the clear markers of sociopathy is lack of feeling and the irony is Xeno is the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. He is so robotic, in the head, totally bereft of any feelings and emotions, very cold-hearted. No wonder he gets attracted by Adyashanti. Insensitive, unperceptive, boring, unattractive - Xeno is just a joke and this message is very malicious. I don't like what feels like an unfriendly intent on the part of Xeno on this subject either. Robin is so far from being a sociopath that it would take a blind, deaf and stupid person to peg him as one. However, I know Xeno to be none of these things. For the most part he appears (and sorry Xeno, to be talking ABOUT you not TO you at this moment) to be a reasonable if somewhat Spock-like personality - dry, analytical and seemingly without too much red blood flowing through his veins. And I can assure you that if I had a choice I would choose to feel overwhelmingly than to walk around anaesthetized to the world. I would rather be wracked with passion and filled with a knee-buckling sense of pathos, or joy or remorse or excitement than some unvarying sense of numbness or the equivalent of a walking talking 'flat liner'. For all of Robin's faults and weakness he has never lacked passion or the ability to demonstrate all emotions, all the rich ways in which life can manifest itself in human behaviour. When you are a sort of conduit, a highly tuned antennae like he is you are bound to be not only enlivened by this but to suffer for it as well. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. What's both disturbing and offensive about Xeno's sociopath thesis is that it's so clear from Robin's posts here that it's absurd, out of the question. It's a childishly hostile, knowingly false characterization born of petty personal antipathy, and as such it could hardly be less consistent with the advanced state of consciousness Xeno claims to have attained, as he himself describes it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. What's both disturbing and offensive about Xeno's sociopath thesis is that it's so clear from Robin's posts here that it's absurd, out of the question. It's a childishly hostile, knowingly false characterization born of petty personal antipathy, and as such it could hardly be less consistent with the advanced state of consciousness Xeno claims to have attained, as he himself describes it. First of all, it was an hypothesis, not a statement of fact. I said I had a suspicion, and Ann corrected me satisfactorily. That Robin harmed people in the past is evidence something was not right with him. As I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I was surmising, not making a diagnosis. Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Second I have not attained anything. I have had certain experiences, as many here have had. All that has happened is the idea that there is something to attain in this spiritual business has fled. That is very different from 'an advanced state of consciousness'. I do not think consciousness has any states. It is either there or it is not, depending somewhat on what one thinks unconsciousness or non-being might be (the paradox is saying whether 'non-being' can 'be', a peculiar oxymoron). Your surmises, Judy, are over the top, while Ann's have a measure of explanation and were not accusatory , they simply filled in missing information; she has sources about Robin that I do not have except by what she might relate to us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. What's both disturbing and offensive about Xeno's sociopath thesis is that it's so clear from Robin's posts here that it's absurd, out of the question. It's a childishly hostile, knowingly false characterization born of petty personal antipathy, and as such it could hardly be less consistent with the advanced state of consciousness Xeno claims to have attained, as he himself describes it. First of all, it was an hypothesis, not a statement of fact. I said I had a suspicion, and Ann corrected me satisfactorily. That Robin harmed people in the past is evidence something was not right with him. As I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I was surmising, not making a diagnosis. Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Second I have not attained anything. I have had certain experiences, as many here have had. All that has happened is the idea that there is something to attain in this spiritual business has fled. That is very different from 'an advanced state of consciousness'. I do not think consciousness has any states. It is either there or it is not, depending somewhat on what one thinks unconsciousness or non-being might be (the paradox is saying whether 'non-being' can 'be', a peculiar oxymoron). All just semantics, Xeno. Your behavior here is inconsistent with your descriptions and characterizations of your experience of consciousness. I think you become obsessed with people who do not give you the admiration and reverence you believe you deserve, and you do your best to take them down. Your surmises, Judy, are over the top, while Ann's have a measure of explanation and were not accusatory Ann and I, in case it has escaped your attention, are different people. But she is obviously not happy with your sociopath thesis either, because it's so uncalled- for on the basis of what you know of Robin. , they simply filled in missing information; she has sources about Robin that I do not have except by what she might relate to us.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? You are kidding, or you are no longer sane. It is quite reasonable. Now that Ann has piped in, my speculation no longer seems reasonable. Other things may seem more reasonable. Narcissism might be a better bet. But you know, probably for certain in your fantasy world, that I have no training to make that diagnosis. So, it remains a mere suspicion, a thought that passes within experience. That has to do with my own mind, not your mind. Your speculations are just as far out on the ledge. Why should your advice in this matter be of any concern? Ann knows far more about Robin. At one time, she must have had suspicions about Robin. Maybe all traces of those have left. But others still have those suspicions. How do we nail this down as fact?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: There's no basis for you to have such suspicions. As I said, they're born of personal hostility. Robin's past history is no basis for having a suspicion? Let's restore what I was responding to from you so we know what the context was: Now, some think he is better, and others think his recriminations concerning his past are a ruse. Based on his last appearance here, I still have suspicions. What else could I say if I think this? Now, did you have a comment you wanted to make on my response that sticks with the actual context? You are kidding, or you are no longer sane. It is quite reasonable. Now that Ann has piped in, my speculation no longer seems reasonable. Other things may seem more reasonable. Narcissism might be a better bet. But you know, probably for certain in your fantasy world, that I have no training to make that diagnosis. So, it remains a mere suspicion, a thought that passes within experience. That has to do with my own mind, not your mind. Your speculations are just as far out on the ledge. Why should your advice in this matter be of any concern? Ann knows far more about Robin. At one time, she must have had suspicions about Robin. Maybe all traces of those have left. But others still have those suspicions. How do we nail this down as fact?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I think the context of the response is different. The questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was being asked for personal advice, which he generally didn't like giving, from what I could tell. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I think the context of the response is different. The questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was being asked for personal advice, which he generally didn't like giving, from what I could tell. Ah, thank you, Lawson. Another clue in the eternal struggle to understand the mind of the True Believer. For all their talk of truth, TMers aren't really *seeking* it. They're just seeking easy answers that put their minds to sleep while they nod and say, Yup...that sure sounds right, Maharishi. Thanks for clarifying that for us...in this context. Now I understand why TB nitpickers get so batshit crazy when they feel that someone has taken something they said out of context. It's like How DARE you suggest that me acting like a harpy and hurling insults at someone is the SAME as them hurling insults at me. It ISN'T. Not, not, not, not not! You *have* to consider the CONTEXT. This other person was sug- gesting that my statement wasn't RIGHT, and not the very definition of 'truth,' and not a *fact* that everyone should hear and *have* to believe. So they're WRONG and I'm RIGHT. THAT is the all-important *context* in which this has to be seen. My statement is correct and *must* be seen as the authoritarian thought-stopper it was, whereas the other person's statement was wrong, and thus *deserved* my insults. :-) I'm just having fun with you being comfortable with Maharishi having declared himself *both* a householder *and* a monk, Lawson. It's a perfect example of the bipolar, immune-to-cognitive-dissonance reasoning of the True Believer. Of *course* Maharishi was *both* a householder and a monk...it all depends on the *context*, which is a synonym for 'what *I* wanted to believe' in each situation. :-) Similarly you are probably comfortable with other examples of the creative uses of 'context' as a thought-stopper. Of *course* the same TMSP program that claims it causes 'invincibility' is so fragile that it might be threatened by the presence in the domes of a few people who have 'seen other teachers.' Of *course* Maharishi was justified in denouncing siddhis as literally 'the worst practice you could ever consider for your spiritual development' in 1968 but then turn around and sell them for thousands of dollars a pop a decade later. Of *course* we can still refer to practicing them as 'flying' when no one has ever flown. It's all about CONTEXT. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
You have surrounded yourself with enough straw men, to make an entire army of scarecrows. All I can say, is, CAW! CAW! CAW!.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I think the context of the response is different. The questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was being asked for personal advice, which he generally didn't like giving, from what I could tell. Ah, thank you, Lawson. Another clue in the eternal struggle to understand the mind of the True Believer. For all their talk of truth, TMers aren't really *seeking* it. They're just seeking easy answers that put their minds to sleep while they nod and say, Yup...that sure sounds right, Maharishi. Thanks for clarifying that for us...in this context. Now I understand why TB nitpickers get so batshit crazy when they feel that someone has taken something they said out of context. It's like How DARE you suggest that me acting like a harpy and hurling insults at someone is the SAME as them hurling insults at me. It ISN'T. Not, not, not, not not! You *have* to consider the CONTEXT. This other person was sug- gesting that my statement wasn't RIGHT, and not the very definition of 'truth,' and not a *fact* that everyone should hear and *have* to believe. So they're WRONG and I'm RIGHT. THAT is the all-important *context* in which this has to be seen. My statement is correct and *must* be seen as the authoritarian thought-stopper it was, whereas the other person's statement was wrong, and thus *deserved* my insults. :-) I'm just having fun with you being comfortable with Maharishi having declared himself *both* a householder *and* a monk, Lawson. It's a perfect example of the bipolar, immune-to-cognitive-dissonance reasoning of the True Believer. Of *course* Maharishi was *both* a householder and a monk...it all depends on the *context*, which is a synonym for 'what *I* wanted to believe' in each situation. :-) Similarly you are probably comfortable with other examples of the creative uses of 'context' as a thought-stopper. Of *course* the same TMSP program that claims it causes 'invincibility' is so fragile that it might be threatened by the presence in the domes of a few people who have 'seen other teachers.' Of *course* Maharishi was justified in denouncing siddhis as literally 'the worst practice you could ever consider for your spiritual development' in 1968 but then turn around and sell them for thousands of dollars a pop a decade later. Of *course* we can still refer to practicing them as 'flying' when no one has ever flown. It's all about CONTEXT. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Thanks, Buck, I forgot this one and it's wonderful. BTW, I don't remember if you're a Dad of people, but Happy Father's Day anyway, at least for the horses (-: From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:47 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome In this (Yoga) no effort is lost and no obstacle exists. Even a little of this dharma delivers from great fear. Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: You have surrounded yourself with enough straw men, to make an entire army of scarecrows. All I can say, is, CAW! CAW! CAW!.:-) Ditto that. Barry really doesn't like having to deal with context or nuance. If you say something *once*, it's True for all time; you are not allowed to change your mind or adapt what you say to different circumstances. Unless you're Barry, of course, who is entirely free to contradict himself at any time. As I said not long ago, the first of Barry's Rules is that they apply only to other people, never to Barry himself. ;-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: I think the context of the response is different. The questioner was interested in the householder vs recluse issue, while in a question about marriage, MMY was being asked for personal advice, which he generally didn't like giving, from what I could tell. Ah, thank you, Lawson. Another clue in the eternal struggle to understand the mind of the True Believer. For all their talk of truth, TMers aren't really *seeking* it. They're just seeking easy answers that put their minds to sleep while they nod and say, Yup...that sure sounds right, Maharishi. Thanks for clarifying that for us...in this context. Now I understand why TB nitpickers get so batshit crazy when they feel that someone has taken something they said out of context. It's like How DARE you suggest that me acting like a harpy and hurling insults at someone is the SAME as them hurling insults at me. It ISN'T. Not, not, not, not not! You *have* to consider the CONTEXT. This other person was sug- gesting that my statement wasn't RIGHT, and not the very definition of 'truth,' and not a *fact* that everyone should hear and *have* to believe. So they're WRONG and I'm RIGHT. THAT is the all-important *context* in which this has to be seen. My statement is correct and *must* be seen as the authoritarian thought-stopper it was, whereas the other person's statement was wrong, and thus *deserved* my insults. :-) I'm just having fun with you being comfortable with Maharishi having declared himself *both* a householder *and* a monk, Lawson. It's a perfect example of the bipolar, immune-to-cognitive-dissonance reasoning of the True Believer. Of *course* Maharishi was *both* a householder and a monk...it all depends on the *context*, which is a synonym for 'what *I* wanted to believe' in each situation. :-) Similarly you are probably comfortable with other examples of the creative uses of 'context' as a thought-stopper. Of *course* the same TMSP program that claims it causes 'invincibility' is so fragile that it might be threatened by the presence in the domes of a few people who have 'seen other teachers.' Of *course* Maharishi was justified in denouncing siddhis as literally 'the worst practice you could ever consider for your spiritual development' in 1968 but then turn around and sell them for thousands of dollars a pop a decade later. Of *course* we can still refer to practicing them as 'flying' when no one has ever flown. It's all about CONTEXT. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together? OMG is this actually a serious question???
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: (snip) The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. It's pure malice on Xeno's part toward Robin and me, Ann, because we never found him to be the wise guru figure of his own imagination. (Not to mention inadvertently ironic in light of the little gem of Adyashanti's he just posted.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Oh dear Ann - thank you for this. This is my intuitive and personal understanding of Robin - glad to hear from someone like you who has been in close quarters with him. I think Robin in addition to his brilliance, charm is very sensitive and loving and he loves and he suffers. I may reply to Xeno - but one of the clear markers of sociopathy is lack of feeling and the irony is Xeno is the most likeliest person to be sociopathic. He is so robotic, in the head, totally bereft of any feelings and emotions, very cold-hearted. No wonder he gets attracted by Adyashanti. Insensitive, unperceptive, boring, unattractive - Xeno is just a joke and this message is very malicious. On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. Ravi, I have been reading about sociopaths and psychopaths recently. I do not suffer and I am not a sociopath, but what you said is germane to the issue because I think I do have some traits that I share with sociopaths. Maybe I am about a third of the way there. Some of these traits intensified with meditation. The only person that has been on this forum that I would suspect of being a sociopath is Robin Carlsen, but I am not in a position to make a believable diagnosis; would prefer to leave that to professionals. I can tell you, after reading the article you shared a link with here, that Robin may be lots of things but sociopath is not one of them I read the article evaluating this possibility the entire time and 99% of what I read bears no relation/resemblance to Robin. I never knew Robin directly, only interacted with him here, so, as I said it was a surmise; glad to be corrected. But something was out of whack with him, if you take all the stories into account. Well, I don't need to take all of the stories into account because they were not stories for me, they were real life, they were my life. If there was anything out of whack I would have to summarize it very simply to say the man felt too much; unlike our author in the article you linked here who didn't seem to feel at all unless it was apartness and a tendency for great violence of reaction. Robin was the exact opposite. His depth of feeling and capacity to carry and hold others within himself created situations and circumstances of great emotion and devastating rending. And my experience of him since those days in my personal correspondence with him has shown me an almost bottomless well of remorse and self recrimination for what he feels he did, how he effected so many of the people he loved in his life. The following article is said to be written by a diagnosed sociopath, who used the pseudonym M.E. Thomas. I am curious what you think of this person. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath I am also interested in the experience or experiences you had 3-4 years ago, your 'awakening'. Some 40 and more years ago I had some experiences that I would have called awakening, though now I would call them 'openings'. Some were, were I religious, simply divine. If I had been suckered into a religion, they surly would have been a conversion experience. Then I went through a period lasting maybe seven years of expansion, followed by decades of what I would call a dark night, then a real awakening, the character of which was quite different than those earlier experiences, though the early experiences had a grain of clarity, but not nearly as much as I had thought at the time they occurred. For me those early experiences were ecstatic, while the latter had a profound and utter ordinariness, a complete lack of any hint of the spectacular. It is that you seem to have had a very profound and ecstatic experience, but now perhaps more reflective about it, maybe wondering how things will unfold from here. I assure you this is not something I can help you with, it is something you are on your own here. You seem to have moments of deep reflection and moments of near insantity. How do you fit these together?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. Amen. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Just as a question, what exactly is it that makeseither Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority,one whose opinion should be valued or followed asif it were truth?While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and youunderstand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believeIS capable of defining dharma, and telling someonewhether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should beregarded as an authority. Thanks in advance...--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. ÃÂ Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library,Good CompanyAn Anthology ofsayings, stories, andanswers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati[Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswatias Shankaracharya.Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Are you an intentional agent or a robot? If you cannot find out, it will make no difference. You're not sure if you're a robot? Sheesh, Ravi's going to have fun with that. I think I know I'm not. I think you know you're not too. I think we know that prior to anything else we know. That's probably prior in the sense of logically prior. If you were a robot you could not *believe* anything. Or *have a view*. Only a robot containing a homunculus can do that. My computer has no homunculus. It doesn't know it's not a person. It not even doesn't know 'nuttin'. It simply *isn't*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. bug I also heard him say, when asked questions about marriage, that he was not a householder and therefore could not comment. I heard him say he was a monk. That's interesting, you don't happen to remember where in the sea of tapes this might be ? It certainly gives meaning. A householder has responsibilities, unlike a monk who is free. And since Maharishi has resposebility not only for his own students, but according to Muktananda the whole world consciousness the word householder in this case certainly makes sense. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome In this (Yoga) no effort is lost and no obstacle exists. Even a little of this dharma delivers from great fear. Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? A book review around dharma: http://www.jyotish.ws/wisdom/review_maharishi_gita.html Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome In this (Yoga) no effort is lost and no obstacle exists. Even a little of this dharma delivers from great fear. Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth. Knowledge is unlimited and available at all times. It manifests itself according to the need of the time. It is only available when the need arises. The stream of love and truth is one, but man catches it in two different ways, by heart or by mind. By heart he means his love, by mind he means his knowledge. But in fact the stream of love and truth is always the same. It is always present in the world and always will be present in the world but people will only take as much as their destiny offers, or as they need. -Swami Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math]
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth. Knowledge is unlimited and available at all times. It manifests itself according to the need of the time. It is only available when the need arises. The stream of love and truth is one, but man catches it in two different ways, by heart or by mind. By heart he means his love, by mind he means his knowledge. But in fact the stream of love and truth is always the same. It is always present in the world and always will be present in the world but people will only
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth. Knowledge is unlimited and available at all times. It manifests itself according to the need
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people ÃÂ meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
turq, IMO whether or not one views the Gita or Maharishi or Maharishi's commentary on the Gita or anyone or any source as valuable is healthiest if based on one's own experience of its having been beneficial for one in the past. This is what makes some one or some source valuable to me though I don't think of such as an authority or authoritative. Rather than give you the Gita definition of dharma, I'll say that for me dharma is the zone, as in when athletes or surgeons or dancers or computer programmers or violinists or women giving birth or lovers or writers or anyone is in the flow of an activity. Dharma is that which gives rise to this feeling of flow, of resonance, of utter harmony with one's surroundings and one's activity. Yes, you're welcome and I'd love to hear definitions of dharma from others, either from himself or herself or from teachers they like. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 1:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... WIKIPEDIA Dharma is the Law that upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe. Dharma has the Sanskrit root -dhri, which means that without which nothing can stand or that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe. In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion. My take on this is rather simplistic. Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it. Your are welcome, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Oh boy! Th Barry Quiz show! Dharma for me, is the evolutionary path dictated by ones accumulative karma. One is the creator of his own destiny. One is born into his dharma as he created it by his karma. Your life, your family ,society, country, your race, religion, all dictated by your past karma. You live it to the best of your ability and if that was good enough you move on. Playing the game with the cards your dealt with and playing it well moves one along that path. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, exactly! From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect--- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the MEand the TM western millenarian movement:There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati QuoteSource: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever'-Buck That land of Bliss andGlory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
So by this definition, Marshy's dharma was to take bits and pieces of Indian superstition and Hindu belief and practice and create a guru movement with it that defrauded millions of people out of their money (and a few gals out of their panties) so he wouldn't have to work for a living? From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Oh boy! Th Barry Quiz show! Dharma for me, is the evolutionary path dictated by ones accumulative karma. One is the creator of his own destiny. One is born into his dharma as he created it by his karma. Your life, your family ,society, country, your race, religion, all dictated by your past karma. You live it to the best of your ability and if that was good enough you move on. Playing the game with the cards your dealt with and playing it well moves one along that path. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makeseither Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority,one whose opinion should be valued or followed asif it were truth?While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and youunderstand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believeIS capable of defining dharma, and telling someonewhether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should beregarded as an authority. Thanks in advance...--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation.Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source:book in LB Shriver's reading library,Good CompanyAn Anthology ofsayings, stories, andanswers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati[Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswatias Shankaracharya.Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... WIKIPEDIA Dharma is the Law that upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe. Dharma has the Sanskrit root -dhri, which means that without which nothing can stand or that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe. FWIW: James Kelleher, a Vedic astrologer, has for many years said that according to what he sees in the charts, Dharma will be leaving planet earth for a while starting about 2019. This would mean a time when law and order and traditions just don't work any more, and humans would have a very rough time of it. In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion. My take on this is rather simplistic. Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it. Your are welcome, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
How deterministic is creation to you, Xeno? Perfectly, it would seem you'd say. If so, then what would that truth mean in our everyday transactions with anyone? Any POV becomes holy and so, even murderers and saints are seen as mere sock puppets tragically forced to be bad or good with no credit for the good and no ownership of the bad? Where is free will in all of this? All I can see to offer as an answer is the mystical assertion that somehow by agencies we cannot surmise with the human nervous system, the Absolute 'arranges everything in the dreamscape. Like that, for you? We're all dreamed in almost the exact same way that any of us dream each night? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... WIKIPEDIA Dharma is the Law that upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe. Dharma has the Sanskrit root -dhri, which means that without which nothing can stand or that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe. In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion. My take on this is rather simplistic. Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it. Your are welcome, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I can't ignore the fact that, just looking at results, Marshy lived a very non-dharmic life which hurt a lot of people. Besides which he was a kayastha and therefore it was a-dharmic for him to follow the lifestyle of a bhramin, which technically he didn't do as he was living the lifestyle of a false priest, a huckster, and not trying to be a real bhramin, but it has been said that Guru Dev told him he was a business man, and not a spiritual teacher - wait a mintue!!! He was in his dharma!!! He was a hell of a businessman! A liar, a con artist but he made it into a hell of a lucrative business, so I stand corrected, he was in his dharma. Better to be a liar and huckster in one's own dharma than try to live the dharma of an honest man. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
shreyAnsvadharmo viguNaH paradharmAtsvanuShThitAt.h . svadharme nidhana.n shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahaH .. 3\-35.. shreyaan sva-dharmaH; viguNaH paradharmaat svanuSThitaat[su-anu-sT..] svadharme nidhanaM shreyaH paradharmaH; bhaya+aavahaH .. 3\-35.. A.C's translation It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faulty, than another's duties. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Yes, exactly! From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect--- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the MEand the TM western millenarian movement:There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati QuoteSource: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people ÃÂ meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Susan, to be a Jew, a male must be circumcised, an obligation but one can convert. In Hinduism, one must be born a Hindu, no conversions accepted, so I'm told by the Brahman priests of the Shri Meenakshi Temple of Pearland Texas. Do all the yoga and yagyas you want, you'll never be a Hindu in this life if you weren't born one. Who knows, neglecting your dharma, trying to adopt another, could backfire. Damn girl, what if you took birth at the bottom of the barrel in Hinduism, a Harijan? From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Card, as I see it, we're all saying the same thing. From: card cardemais...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. shreyAnsvadharmo viguNaH paradharmAtsvanuShThitAt.h . svadharme nidhana.n shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahaH .. 3\-35.. shreyaan sva-dharmaH; viguNaH paradharmaat svanuSThitaat[su-anu-sT..] svadharme nidhanaM shreyaH paradharmaH; bhaya+aavahaH .. 3\-35.. A.C's translation It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faulty, than another's duties. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Yes, exactly! From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect--- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the MEand the TM western millenarian movement:There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati QuoteSource: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Mike, the words about Abrahmic religions were written by Xeno, not me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Susan, to be a Jew, a male must be circumcised, an obligation but one can convert. In Hinduism, one must be born a Hindu, no conversions accepted, so I'm told by the Brahman priests of the Shri Meenakshi Temple of Pearland Texas. Do all the yoga and yagyas you want, you'll never be a Hindu in this life if you weren't born one. Who knows, neglecting your dharma, trying to adopt another, could backfire. Damn girl, what if you took birth at the bottom of the barrel in Hinduism, a Harijan? From: Susan wayback71@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Sorry, my mistake From: Susan waybac...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Mike, the words about Abrahmic religions were written by Xeno, not me. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Susan, to be a Jew, a male must be circumcised, an obligation but one can convert. In Hinduism, one must be born a Hindu, no conversions accepted, so I'm told by the Brahman priests of the Shri Meenakshi Temple of Pearland Texas. Do all the yoga and yagyas you want, you'll never be a Hindu in this life if you weren't born one. Who knows, neglecting your dharma, trying to adopt another, could backfire. Damn girl, what if you took birth at the bottom of the barrel in Hinduism, a Harijan? From: Susan wayback71@... To: mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  In Abrahamic religions only the belief in certain teachings is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma. Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. I can't ignore the fact that, just looking at results, Marshy lived a very non-dharmic life which hurt a lot of people. Besides which he was a kayastha and therefore it was a-dharmic for him to follow the lifestyle of a bhramin, which technically he didn't do as he was living the lifestyle of a false priest, a huckster, and not trying to be a real bhramin, but it has been said that Guru Dev told him he was a business man, and not a spiritual teacher - wait a mintue!!! He was in his dharma!!! He was a hell of a businessman! A liar, a con artist but he made it into a hell of a lucrative business, so I stand corrected, he was in his dharma.Better to be a liar and huckster in one's own dharma than try to live the dharma of an honest man. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
mjackson74: real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison... 'Dharma' - that's a Buddhist word, right? LoL! Have you ever considered attending a culinary school? Author: Uncle Tantra Subject: Re: The Disappearing Of Aran A. Mous Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda Date: 2003-03-12 17:00:34 PST I'm a Buddhist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
MMY was asked (I've seen the video) what his lifestyle was, and he looked very surprised as he slowly said that he was a householder. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I have to admit, he did run the TMO like a business, not sure what business model that was.LOL! Buddha wasn't a Brahmin either, just another Kshatriya, Jesus, a carpenter, not a Levite. I think once you've fulfilled your dharma, you are obligated to help others. I've never seen M as a priest but a monk and anybody can be a monk, even a poor one.Being a monk is it's own dharma.  Don't know if he ever took formal vows. I take it that he didn't.He said to take them before one is ready is not good and it puts limitations on what one can do. From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  I can't ignore the fact that, just looking at results, Marshy lived a very non-dharmic life which hurt a lot of people. Besides which he was a kayastha and therefore it was a-dharmic for him to follow the lifestyle of a bhramin, which technically he didn't do as he was living the lifestyle of a false priest, a huckster, and not trying to be a real bhramin, but it has been said that Guru Dev told him he was a business man, and not a spiritual teacher - wait a mintue!!! He was in his dharma!!! He was a hell of a businessman! A liar, a con artist but he made it into a hell of a lucrative business, so I stand corrected, he was in his dharma.Better to be a liar and huckster in one's own dharma than try to live the dharma of an honest man. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.  Just as a question, what exactly is it that makes either Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority, one whose opinion should be valued or followed as if it were truth? While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believe IS capable of defining dharma, and telling someone whether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should be regarded as an authority. Thanks in advance... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: How deterministic is creation to you, Xeno? Perfectly, it would seem you'd say. If so, then what would that truth mean in our everyday transactions with anyone? Any POV becomes holy and so, even murderers and saints are seen as mere sock puppets tragically forced to be bad or good with no credit for the good and no ownership of the bad? Where is free will in all of this? All I can see to offer as an answer is the mystical assertion that somehow by agencies we cannot surmise with the human nervous system, the Absolute 'arranges everything in the dreamscape. Like that, for you? We're all dreamed in almost the exact same way that any of us dream each night? Edg I tend not to use the word 'creation' which implies whatever is was somehow made by something. The laws of nature, as we formulate them, seem wholly deterministic except for the statistical randomness of quantum mechanics. That means pure prediction is impossible, that we cannot find out if it really is one way or the other. Randomness is not will, free or not, it's chance. I think free will is a mistaken conception, but it seems free because of our inability to know. As Richard Feynman implied, it's OK not to know, but there are still ways to find out some of it, even if it's a dream. All is holy but not necessarily nice. If you do think of everything as 'created', then you end up with statements like, 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things' (Isaiah 45:7). It seems to make life totally purposeless and meaningless. That is fine, but only as a whole. There is no way to conceptualise the whole that can really describe the experience. But if your attention narrows down, you get streams and tributaries, and things seem to have some kind of direction, which you can interpret as purpose or meaning, which it *seems* as if you can choose to do so, but which perhaps we can never ever be sure. Are you an intentional agent or a robot? If you cannot find out, it will make no difference.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form.Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome Nicely defined - for you- Buck. Just as Barry doesn't believe in natural law, God or Adam and Eve I am not convinced there is such a thing as sin. The reasons for that are many and complex. Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Buck gives the best of best over all posts. Dharma was a character on a sitcom. Her counter part was Greg. Just saying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Oh wow, this must be hard. what do the doctors say Xeno, do they have anything definitive, how long must you suffer like this? Goddammit why can't they just say it, two choices - how hard can it be, either a sociopath or a psychopath. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@... wrote: How deterministic is creation to you, Xeno? Perfectly, it would seem you'd say. If so, then what would that truth mean in our everyday transactions with anyone? Any POV becomes holy and so, even murderers and saints are seen as mere sock puppets tragically forced to be bad or good with no credit for the good and no ownership of the bad? Where is free will in all of this? All I can see to offer as an answer is the mystical assertion that somehow by agencies we cannot surmise with the human nervous system, the Absolute 'arranges everything in the dreamscape. Like that, for you? We're all dreamed in almost the exact same way that any of us dream each night? Edg I tend not to use the word 'creation' which implies whatever is was somehow made by something. The laws of nature, as we formulate them, seem wholly deterministic except for the statistical randomness of quantum mechanics. That means pure prediction is impossible, that we cannot find out if it really is one way or the other. Randomness is not will, free or not, it's chance. I think free will is a mistaken conception, but it seems free because of our inability to know. As Richard Feynman implied, it's OK not to know, but there are still ways to find out some of it, even if it's a dream. All is holy but not necessarily nice. If you do think of everything as 'created', then you end up with statements like, 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things' (Isaiah 45:7). It seems to make life totally purposeless and meaningless. That is fine, but only as a whole. There is no way to conceptualise the whole that can really describe the experience. But if your attention narrows down, you get streams and tributaries, and things seem to have some kind of direction, which you can interpret as purpose or meaning, which it *seems* as if you can choose to do so, but which perhaps we can never ever be sure. Are you an intentional agent or a robot? If you cannot find out, it will make no difference.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yeah - Dharma was hot, I definitely had a crush on her back then. Just checked, '97 - '02, was in the Seattle area. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:54 PM, obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** Buck gives the best of best over all posts. Dharma was a character on a sitcom. Her counter part was Greg. Just saying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and you understand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. Dharma? Duty in life. Look, the science now is quite evidently clear on the virtues of meditation as it is in our spiritual experience when cultivated. Successful human life is a flow of public responsibility and spirituality in the human form. Hence it should become everyone's duty to come to meditation now and thus dharma and duty are intertwined. It is that simple. To fall from dharma obviously is sin. A failure of duty, adharma. This is manifestly natural law. It is that simple, -Buck, a Conservative Meditator in the Dome Xenophaneros: Dharma is what happens. Only what happens is what actually happens in the universe. Nothing but this happens. This is dharma. You do not have to do or believe anything to be in your dharma. Try and stop it... Dharma is a causal nexus, an infinitely complex network of conditions. According to the oldest philosophy in India, all things happen for a reason; there are no chance events; and no events are spontaneously self-generated. Events happen due to causation, the natural law of action and reaction, where relative conditioned reflexes depend on prior events, i.e. this because of that, just like in billiards, where physics rules and gravity sucks. There are NO exceptions to the law of causation, which is the causal nexus. There is no personal demi-urge, or ghost in the machine, who interferes in human affairs, dividing history in half, thus upsetting the laws of nature. Time is an illusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
? Yes, the Meissner Effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Say, Mike, how *are* things in Glocca Morra?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=oNiuDuEVllc#t=9\ 0s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=oNiuDuEVllc#t=\ 90s Aaah forget this particular bird (hopeless but not serious)of the Leprecauns of Gort na Gloca Mora, Does that laddie/With the twinklin' eye/Come whistlin' by/And does he walk away/Sad and dreamy there/Not to see you there there at end of the rainbow and,my dear Judy, don't you know: The whole world is turning into a regular Sodom and Glocca Morra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anuDJ2pvdho http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anuDJ2pvdho Are you frightened, for a wind Crept along the grass to say Something that was in your mind Yesterday? Let metell you Something Something that You did not know Could be found out by the wind, You had buried it so low In your mind. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Say, Mike, how *are* things in Glocca Morra?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
My favorite Archie Bunkerism, Sodom and Glocca Morra. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 11:57 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Say, Mike, how *are* things in Glocca Morra?
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth. Where is Judy when we need an editor? The transcendental movement is a revolutionary millenarianism to affect a heaven on Earth. 'affect' means to influence or effect a change in 'To affect a heaven on Earth' implies that there might be more than one heaven on Earth, and that the transcendental movement will cause a change in 'a heaven on Earth', but not be the cause of it. And it does not say just what that affect will be. It could make it less heaven on Earth, for example. What you meant to say was 'the transcendental movement will effect a heaven on Earth', and probably, knowing your style, not just any old heaven on Earth; so you probably meant to say 'the transcendental movement will effect heaven on Earth'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Say, Mike, how *are* things in Glocca Morra? Great tobacco.
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library, Good Company An Anthology of sayings, stories, and answers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati [Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati as Shankaracharya. Do See FFL post #345760 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/345760 to get the flow of the ME in modern spiritual regeneration. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: I guess you could also call it(M.E.) the Abraham effect. Read the story of Sodom and Glocca Morra. Abraham asks God how many righteous souls it would take for him not to destroy the cities of the plains. He bargains with God from about fifty down to about ten. Once the number of righteous drops below a certain point, God will not guarantee their safety from His wrath. Yes, the Millenarian Effect Yes, it is TM Millenarianism: Yup, it's revolutionary and we're TM revolutionaries doing it. Yes, belief in a coming ideal society and especially one created by revolutionary action. A MME, Meissner Millenarian Effect. ***see Fairfieldlife message 343576, heaven on earth: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/343576 Scientific research shows that even small groups of people  meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect Yep, The modern spiritual regeneration movement started as a ME with Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati held that huge group puja in India that brought an end to World War II. It was a cover story on Life magazine. Yes, and we are the soldiers of the ME Scientific Spiritual Regeneration bringing revolution to all. Brothers and Sisters, Give thanks to the Unified Field for It is good; for It's steadfast love endures for ever. Let all of humanity say: 'It's steadfast love endures for ever' -Buck That land of Bliss and Glory exists above us, under us, around us, within us, without us, if we open our eyes to see, The Unified Field. It is true, The Transcendental Movement Is A Revolutionary Millenarianism To Affect a Heaven on Earth.
