[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

Barry concludes snipped:
Another aspect of the enlightenment process that
one tends to see in other traditions more often
than in the TM movement is just *not caring* where
one is at on the "enlightenment scale." The moments
of clear realization are neat, and the moments of
unclear realization are neat, and the moments of
non-realization are neat. There is no qualitative
"better" or "best" among them. What is important
in these traditions -- or in those individuals who
feel this way -- is appreciating the moment itself,
enjoying Now as much as it can be enjoyed, regard-
less of its place on some kind of "enlightenment
scale."  

Tom T:
>From my experience in FF there are now a large number of TMers who are
no longer seekers. They have found. As one of the Weds nite guys put
it. I am no longer a seeker but knowledge is now appreciated in all
phases of my life. He is always finding more knowledge in his day to
day existence and yet as he sees it there is no end. I like the way
Jed McKenna put it. Free Fall Forever. Or as a young lady described it
to Gangaji "Delightful Confusion".

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

Marek writes snipped:
Also, I agree with you that when there is any experience of 
awakening, no matter how transitory, the hook would seem to have been 
set and the search for its permanency might begin in earnest.  At 
least that's been many folks' experience, though Curtis at this point 
in time, seems to have come to a different conclusion regardless of 
how much he has enjoyed (or enjoys) what many would designate 
as 'spiritual' experiences or transient awakening.

Tom T:
To paraphrase Jean Klein from "I AM". The awakening was (past tense)
instantaneous, clarity takes place in space time. What made us seekers
was that glimpse. 30+ years later clarity is dawning or has arrived. TomT

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death

[WLeed3]

Thanks U tom for your responce to the emails of 



** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death

[tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis]

Rory writes snipped big time:

As for the rest, I'll just reiterate that I am not saying you guys 
are "damaged" -- just that you and Vaj (Curtis less so) seem self-
condemned to repeat yourselves over and over, making broad, sweeping 
(and easily disputed) statements without ever getting to your 
personal integrity, to your undisputable personal experience, and to 
the core of your discontent, where IME great treasure lies.

Tom T:
Patanjali Chapter 2 verse 30 something
When the person is established in Personal Integrity all actions
achieve the desired result.
Followed immediately by 
When the person is established in truthfulness all riches flow. 
Tom T

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> They consider Maharishi and his ideas "special." The ideas 
> come, after all, from someone they consider an enlightened 
> being, and to whom they feel the gratitude and devotion of 
> a "follower." Curtis and I are not followers of Maharishi; 
> we *don't* consider him "our teacher," or "special" in any 
> way. He's Just A Guy, and his ideas are Just Ideas.
> 
> I think I've exchanged enough ideas with Curtis to be able
> to say that he finds *nothing* "insulting" or "attacking"
> in this stance. Neither do I. And yet, when we treat 
> Maharishi here on FFL *as* Just A Guy, or his ideas as Just
> Ideas, we are often accused of "attacking" him. Both Rory 
> and Jim (not to mention Judy) do this on a regular basis.

FWIW, I just did a search on the phrases "attack MMY,"
"attacking MMY," "attacks MMY," and "attacked MMY" in
my posts and found one single instance of "attack MMY,"
in response to a post of Barry's. (After reading the
thread, however, I realize that particular post of
Barry's was really more attacking Lawson than attacking
MMY.)

But this is irrelevant.


> Again, I have often found that the things that Rory, Jim,
> and Judy *consider* "attacks" are Curtis and I not being
> as deferential to Maharishi as they are. We don't treat
> him as "special" in any way, and THAT constitutes an 
> "attack" against him in their minds.

No, the problem with some (not all) of your
criticisms is not that you aren't treating MMY as
"special," but that the criticisms are *unfair*
to MMY even as "Just A Guy." Rory's entirely
correct that your criticisms are unbalanced.

To use your own formulation, you don't cut MMY as
much slack as you do others here on FFL 
(depending; often you're just as unfair to posters
here).

Again, it's the *unfairness* that we're reacting to,
whether it's simple misrepresentation or distortion
or exaggeration of what he's said and done, or
imputation of negative motives when you couldn't
possibly know what his motives were.

What I do is not to simply deny your criticisms are
valid; rather, I present alternate, more positive
ways of looking at whatever you're criticizing
based on the known facts. The point is to
demonstrate that you automatically go for the
negative interpretation when more positive ones are
just as likely.

You characterize this as "defending MMY," but it
isn't; rather, it's a criticism of your approach
and an attempt to bring some balance to the
discussion.


> If you were "intellectually honest," you might counter
> Curtis' assertion above by providing examples of how
> one thought that Maharishi's ideas were *not* a misunder-
> standing, or how they were *not* misapplied. 
> 
> But the instant you segue into saying that Curtis is 
> "damaged" for having said it, or is suffering from some 
> lingering "anger" towards Maharishi for having said it,
> or is "intellectually dishonest" for having said it, or
> is actually "lying" by saying it, you have descended to
> the level of ad hominem argument or actual insult.
> 
> And I'm sorry, but Rory, Jim, and Judy do this A LOT.

Speaking-in-generalities alert!

Also, Barry is confused over what constitutes an 
"ad hominem argument." It isn't simply using ad
hominem; it's making ad hominem the entire basis
for the argument.

If a logical/factual basis for the argument is
*also* given, then the ad hominem is merely
incidental, and it isn't an ad hominem argument.

Sauce-for-the-goose time: Barry, find three--or,
heck, just *one*--post of mine in which, in
rebutting some specific criticism, I accuse Curtis
or you or anybody else of being "intellectually
dishonest" or "lying" without *also* explaining
why I made the accusation.

If you *don't* do this, I think I'm justified in
ignoring *your* criticism above in the future,
right?


> After 30+ years of meditation, I would have expected more
> people to have been able to discern the difference between
> what they believe and who they are. But, alas, that has
> not been my experience on Fairfield Life and on other TM-
> related forums.
> 
> Instead, I see people -- and even people who *claim to be
> enlightened*, ferchrissakes -- reacting to a criticism of 
> their *ideas* as if they themselves had been criticized or 
> even "attacked." They lash out at the critic -- who has 
> done nothing more than present an idea that is contrary 
> to their own -- as if he had slapped them in the face.

Actually, *you* react to our pointing out that your
criticisms are unfair as if *you* had been slapped
in the face.

In fact, you, Barry, in particular (less so with
Curtis), almost never actually deal with what we
point out. Instead you launch a barrage of ad
hominem against *us*--*you* indulge in ad hominem
arguments, as you just did with regard to what I
quoted of your attacks on MMY.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> > wrote:
> > I'm simply making a personal observation that much of what you've 
> > written these past few 
> > > weeks strikes me as quite silly. 
> > 
> > no sweeping generalization there...anyway what you say makes 
perfect 
> > sense in the context of an ego clinging to dear "life".:-)
> 
> No sweeping generalization there either. : o
>
Ha-Ha! good one! :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> wrote:
> I'm simply making a personal observation that much of what you've 
> written these past few 
> > weeks strikes me as quite silly. 
> 
> no sweeping generalization there...anyway what you say makes perfect 
> sense in the context of an ego clinging to dear "life".:-)

No sweeping generalization there either. : o

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> I dunno Rory. Is Dharmapala a humorless pompous know-it-all with a 
horse laugh?

I dunno, Geezer; is she? I guess for you at this moment, maybe!

> Thanks for the smiley face. I'll sleep better tonight with your 
smiley face blessing.

It was actually your original face (before your parents were born?), 
but here's another one, specially from me :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments below:
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Rory
> > > 
> > > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was 
> attempting 
> > > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently 
> willful 
> > > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> > > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my 
> current 
> > > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> > > understanding of the self. 
> > 
> > Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and
> > "enlightenment" that you seem to be making.  Referring to me as
> > "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in
> > context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a 
state 
> of
> > consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your
> > experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that.  But
> > assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate
> > questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make.  You get 
> the
> > equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no 
> more
> > no less.  
> > 
> > > 
> > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
> Barry -- 
> > > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one 
is 
> > > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends 
> to 
> > > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY 
and 
> the 
> > > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in 
an 
> > > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut 
> slack 
> > > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more 
than 
> you 
> > > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> > > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
> > 
> > Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different 
sides
> > of the street IMO.  I have a different opinion of what Judy is up 
to
> > and have already written about it.  I do not accept that she is 
> just 
> > pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor.  I
> > agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's
> > teaching.  It is a style of relating to people that is content 
free,
> > MMY is just a prop.  IMO it is the personal assertion of power and
> > will that is the the motivator.  It is not philosophical at all, 
it 
> is
> > a more primal drive in play.  Just my 2 cents.
> > 
> > What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that 
has
> > been useful for you on other people.  But reducing philosophical
> > positions to emotions strips them of the important content. 
> > 
> > For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be 
> falsely
> > perceived as an "attack":  "MMY is incorrect in his understanding 
of
> > human consciousness.  He has misapplied an ancient framework to 
> mental
> > states and processes that we understand better though the 
insights 
> of
> > modern psychology."  I make this statement without any personal 
> attack
> > on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's
> > teaching.  If you try to reduce this position to my emotional 
state
> > you miss the whole point.  If you argue that I am wrong because I 
am
> > just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are 
> making
> > an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing 
with
> > what the person has said.  I refer to all such arguments as "poopy
> > pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued in 
a
> > school yard.  The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply pants" 
> and
> > runs away. It is philosophically bogus.  It also leads to a quick
> > infinite regress.  If it is true that our philosophy can be 
reduced 
> to
> > emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just be
> > your own repressed past experience about people claiming that MMY 
is
> > wrong.  Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point
> > wouldn't it?
> > 
> > I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph 
presents. 
> > It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks epistemological
> > implications for me.
> > 
> > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him.  It is 
because 
> I
> > think he is wrong.  I had great experiences for 15 years and do 
not
> > dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on.  Young 
people 
> are
> > usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs.  
I 
> got
> > a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit long, 
> if I
> > had my druthers, I gained a lot.  I also gained a lot from 
deciding
> > that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on
> > consciousness.  I take responsibility for my voluntary 
participation
> > for years, and my choice to leave when I did. Changing 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
I'm simply making a personal observation that much of what you've 
written these past few 
> weeks strikes me as quite silly. 

no sweeping generalization there...anyway what you say makes perfect 
sense in the context of an ego clinging to dear "life".:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> > > > > And then they actually expect us to believe that they're
> > > > > enlightened.
> > > > what are you smoking? This is a foolish and incorrect 
> statement.:-)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Love your and Rory's little smiley face sign off after insulting 
> > someone. Is the smiley face a 
> > > secret code signal for the, um, "enlightened" Jimbo?
> > >
> > Yep!:-)
> >
> Seriously, Barry can insult me or create a hugely erroneous 
> impression and I'm supposed to "play by the rules"? And what *are* 
> the rules anyway? 
> 
> The other comment that occurs to me is, if I am enlightened, then as 
> we've established ad nauseum here, there is no way for anyone else 
> to tell (except for the incorporation of UC into BC, and you need 
> the t-shirt for that one ;-)), so it is pretty funny for you to be 
> apparently taking me to task for my behavior, not because I am 
> Jimbo, but because I am enlightened- do you see how whatever point 
> you are making, pointing out the supposed contrast between my 
> behavior, and the behavior of an enlightened man, has no substance? 
> Once again, enlightenment cannot be discerned by a person's outward 
> behavior (except for the incorporation of UC into BC, but we already 
> covered that). 
> 
> Anyway, you possibly think I am a blankety blank or something as a 
> person, and that is an entirely different issue, but trying to get 
> me to wake up to my behavior because it does not comport with the 
> actions of an enlightened man is I am sorry, rubbish.:-)

I'm not trying to get you to wake up to anything Jimbo. And I don't think 
you're a blankety 
blank as a person. I don't know you other than by the comments you make here. 
You 
might very well be a great guy to hang with, who knows?

I'm simply making a personal observation that much of what you've written these 
past few 
weeks strikes me as quite silly. No big deal. Carry on.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> wrote:
> > Good. I would call him someone dealing out practically ceaseless good 
> sense. Judy I would 
> > call 
> > something else and it certainly isn't Bodhhisattva.
> 
> How about a wrathful-deity Dharmapala? Not all Bodhisattvas are sugary 
> sweet, you know.
>  
> > Hey, where's my smiley face? C'mon Rory, let me have a smiley 
> face! : -)   <--- There it is!
>

I dunno Rory. Is Dharmapala a humorless pompous know-it-all with a horse laugh?

Thanks for the smiley face. I'll sleep better tonight with your smiley face 
blessing.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > > > And then they actually expect us to believe that they're
> > > > enlightened.
> > > what are you smoking? This is a foolish and incorrect 
statement.:-)
> > >
> > 
> > Love your and Rory's little smiley face sign off after insulting 
> someone. Is the smiley face a 
> > secret code signal for the, um, "enlightened" Jimbo?
> >
> Yep!:-)
>
Seriously, Barry can insult me or create a hugely erroneous 
impression and I'm supposed to "play by the rules"? And what *are* 
the rules anyway? 

The other comment that occurs to me is, if I am enlightened, then as 
we've established ad nauseum here, there is no way for anyone else 
to tell (except for the incorporation of UC into BC, and you need 
the t-shirt for that one ;-)), so it is pretty funny for you to be 
apparently taking me to task for my behavior, not because I am 
Jimbo, but because I am enlightened- do you see how whatever point 
you are making, pointing out the supposed contrast between my 
behavior, and the behavior of an enlightened man, has no substance? 
Once again, enlightenment cannot be discerned by a person's outward 
behavior (except for the incorporation of UC into BC, but we already 
covered that). 

Anyway, you possibly think I am a blankety blank or something as a 
person, and that is an entirely different issue, but trying to get 
me to wake up to my behavior because it does not comport with the 
actions of an enlightened man is I am sorry, rubbish.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > And then they actually expect us to believe that they're
> > > enlightened.
> > what are you smoking? This is a foolish and incorrect statement.:-)
> >
> 
> Love your and Rory's little smiley face sign off after insulting 
someone. Is the smiley face a 
> secret code signal for the, um, "enlightened" Jimbo?
>
Yep!:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Good. I would call him someone dealing out practically ceaseless good 
sense. Judy I would 
> call 
> something else and it certainly isn't Bodhhisattva.

How about a wrathful-deity Dharmapala? Not all Bodhisattvas are sugary 
sweet, you know.
 
> Hey, where's my smiley face? C'mon Rory, let me have a smiley 
face! : -)   <--- There it is! 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:
> > >> Along these same lines, I will say right here that I do *not* 
> have 
> > > the particular gifts -- the clarity, maturity, single-minded 
> > > compassion and patience -- that Judy has manifested over the 
> years in 
> > > trying to show the critics their blind-spots and in the process 
> > > putting up with their complete incomprehension and practically 
> > > ceaseless abuse; she is far more of a Bodhisattva than I will 
> ever 
> > > be. 
> > > 
> > > (This too is perfect!) :-)
> > 
> > Good god, what a creepy thing to say.
> > 
> > If there's anyone around here with endless patience and compassion 
> in the face of abuse it's 
> > Curtis.
> 
> Yes, certainly; Curtis too has shown a great deal of patience and 
> compassion, and I wouldn't call him one of those dealing out 
> practically ceaseless abuse.
>
Good. I would call him someone dealing out practically ceaseless good sense. 
Judy I would 
call 
something else and it certainly isn't Bodhhisattva.

Hey, where's my smiley face? C'mon Rory, let me have a smiley face! : -)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > And then they actually expect us to believe that they're
> > enlightened.
> what are you smoking? This is a foolish and incorrect statement.:-)
>

Love your and Rory's little smiley face sign off after insulting someone. Is 
the smiley face a 
secret code signal for the, um, "enlightened" Jimbo?

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

Hey, Curtis!

Yes, I feel the same way. It's been a great pleasure; these 
conversations with you and with Barry have made me look more closely 
at a lot of things, particularly the issue of balance and integrity. 
On further reflection, I see that from another angle I am yet again 
advocating the inward movement of transcendence,  -- pulling back 
from our projected discontents "out there" to their inward core "in 
here;" i/o/w moving from victimization and addiction to empowerment 
and sobriety. One of my favorite modern psychologist/therapists, by 
the way, is one that Tom T. introduced me to -- Anne Wilson Schaef. 
Her books, "When Society Becomes an Addict" and especially "Escape 
>From Intimacy: The Pseudo-Relationship Addictions - Untangling 
the "Love" Addictions, Sex, Romance, Relationships," beautifully 
unfolded the dynamics of Brahman as sobriety, without ever mentioning 
Brahman :-)

Happy Independence Day! *L*L*L*

Rory







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rory,
> 
> This interaction including Marek and Turq's comments on it has been
> one of the most fruitful for me on FFL.  I want to start by thanking
> you for taking the time for making such a detailed response.  I 
think
> I understand your points better and you drew good lines where we
> disagree. But the whole spirit of maintaining rapport that your post
> maintains is something I really appreciate.  Since we were 
discussing
> feelings a bit, I felt respected and that you genuinely desire to
> understand what I am saying.  Very cool and thank you for that.
> 
> I think the psychological model that you have found useful in your 
own
> life is being applied to mine. In my view it does not apply but you
> may be seeing something else. I do recognize that we all have blind
> spots which is what makes posting here so valuable.  I have learned 
a
> lot here.
> 
> When I left MMY it was not out of being disillusioned or feeling
> cheated by him.  It was a continuation of my interest in discovery
> that lead me outside his system.  If I felt hurt it was from my
> previous movement friends not understanding that I had not turned 
into
> the devil, but was positively enjoying other ways to view the
> experiences in meditation. It was naive of me to think it was 
possible
> to maintain discussions since I had viewed people who left the
> movement as "negative" when I was into it myself.  Through the years
> those friendships got replaced and I don't feel hurt by their
> rejection.  It was the only move they could make and stay as devoted
> as they were (and some are).
> 
> The reason I am not hurt my MMY is because he took me on a fantastic
> ride.  He was a bit manipulative and was "using" us, but this is not
> so uncommon for ambitious older people exploiting innocent youth for
> their own benefit.  I give him a pass that he probably believes most
> of his own rap, but I don't view him as the most honest guy in the
> world or saintly in any way.  I don't think he has much human
> compassion or capacity to respect and love other people as equals.  
I
> suspect this is a disorder.  So I don't think he has much of a 
choice
> in how he operates.  Should I be hurt if, as a frog, I get stung by
> the scorpion riding on my back? 
> 
> So I have made my peace and mostly enjoy the good things from my 
past
> experiences in the movement.  It made me a hell of a lecturer with 
so
> much public speaking experience and that has benefited the way I
> present my music act.  I am very glad that I spent the years 
rounding,
> so I have a grasp of what people are talking about with how 
compelling
> mystical experiences are.  Posting here with people with all sorts 
of
> versions of relationship with our past movement lives has been 
really
> healing for me.
> 
> I want to address one point you made in your post directly:
> 
> ME: > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him. It is
> because I think he is wrong.
> 
> Rory:
> Yes, you do think he is wrong, and that you know better, and I am
> absolutely certain that you are right; that that is true. Our
> conceptual understanding/framework of what MMY has said is 
absolutely
> false. There's a simpler truth you have been articulating,
> where "enlightenment" and "ignorance" are utterly irrelevant,
> and "spiritual experience" itself is irrelevant, and your own self
> knows your own self best, and so on. These are some of the keynotes
> of "Brahman," which he also has talked about, as much as one can 
talk
> about the utterly indescribable :-)
> 
> Me:  I don't believe that I know better than MMY concerning human
> consciousness.  I have found some models more useful than his, but I
> am far from understanding human consciousness.  I consider the
> contribution of traditional practices to be valuable.  I think there
> are important contributions from more modern sources.  This is a 
life
> long fascination for me, and although I don't consider 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

>

> Rory:
> > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
> > > Barry -- where blind spots are involved, there is no 
*equanimity*; 
> > > one is coming from a place of ungrounded attack. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But as I pointed out to Rory in email (and he failed 
> to grasp), and as Curtis points out so well below, often
> I think we are *not* coming from a "place of attack." We 
> are merely coming from a "place" of *not cutting Maharishi 
> and his ideas any more slack than we would cut anyone else*.

Rory: 
O.K., I'll try again: I am not asking you to cut MMY and his ideas 
any more slack than you would cut anyone else; do you think *I* do? 
I've already pointed many areas in which I overtly do *not* currently 
give those ideas much credence: TM program, Stapathya Veda, Ayurveda, 
Jyotish. The only aspect I *do* currently give much credence to, is 
Self as Being, and that's an experiential thing, not an idea per se.

I am only pointing out, as I did in my email response to you (which 
you apparently failed to grasp), that you actually do not show 
equanimity here; you are *not* treating him as you would "an ordinary 
truck driver," for you are *still criticising him after 30 years*! I 
am not defending MMY here -- those are *not our only two choices* -- 
attack him or defend him. There is a third choice, where he simply 
doesn't matter to us, is not something that riles us up enough to 
criticise. For some reason, you still find him irritating enough to 
write about, in pretty much the same words, over and over and over 
again. What is the seed of your discontent?
 
> Others on this forum often *perceive* this as an attack.

Attack, criticism, call it what you will -- a surprisingly large 
expenditure of energy for a guy who claims to have left MMY and the 
movement 30 years ago, don't you think? It looks to me as if he is 
still very much on your back; very much "special" to you.

> They consider Maharishi and his ideas "special." The ideas 
> come, after all, from someone they consider an enlightened 
> being, and to whom they feel the gratitude and devotion of 
> a "follower." 

As I pointed out to you in my response to your email (and you 
apparently failed to grasp), I am not sure I could show MMY any more 
respect than I give everyone else; everyone is the same "stuff," and 
I give everyone as much love and respect as they are comfortable 
receiving -- sometimes more :-). When I was feeling all that 
tremendous love and appreciation for MMY I was also feeling it 
equally for myself and everyone else, as we are all utterly divine 
radiant particles of Being. When you asked me in your email if I 
would fold my hands and bow to MMY and not to everyone else, I told 
you (and you failed to respond) that in FF I generally fold my hands 
and bow to everyone. Elsewhere, where the custom is hugging or 
shaking hands, I do that. As I also said, I think you're maybe 
missing half of the formula: Not only is everyone "ordinary," 
everyone is also simultaneously "divine".

Curtis and I are not followers of Maharishi; 
> we *don't* consider him "our teacher," or "special" in any 
> way. He's Just A Guy, and his ideas are Just Ideas.

Rory:
Then why spend 30 years fighting them? That's all I'm asking. I am 
not defending them; I find them as indefensible as your criticisms :-)

Barry:
> I think I've exchanged enough ideas with Curtis to be able
> to say that he finds *nothing* "insulting" or "attacking"
> in this stance. Neither do I. And yet, when we treat 
> Maharishi here on FFL *as* Just A Guy, or his ideas as Just
> Ideas, we are often accused of "attacking" him. Both Rory 
> and Jim (not to mention Judy) do this on a regular basis.

Rory:
I never called it "insulting," that's a straw dog. To me it is *not* 
a personal issue of "MMY deserving our respect." God knows, I have 
criticised him and his ideas *plenty* in my day. I'm just saying you 
appear to be very hung up on MMY, that's all. And on Judy as well, 
for that matter :-)

Rory: 
> > > What the critic tends to miss IMO is that Judy and I are 
generally 
> > > *not* defending MMY and the TMO; we're just pointing out *that 
the 
> > > critic is attacking in an unbalanced manner*. 

Barry: 
> As *you* perceive "balance." As I pointed out above, if 
> that perception of "balance" includes giving Maharishi or
> his ideas a deference that you would not give to the some-
> one else here on FFL, or to their ideas, then the person
> who is "unbalanced" is YOU, not the person you are 
> criticizing.

Rory:
I have never implied that "balance includes giving MMY or his ideas 
deference." Balance means giving statements that manifest personal 
integrity, as opposed to giving wildly sweeping inaccuracies which 
are unsupportable or easily picked apart. A relatively unbalanced 
example might be my saying something like "MMY's stapathya veda is 
rampant foolishness designed only to rake

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:
> >> Along these same lines, I will say right here that I do *not* 
have 
> > the particular gifts -- the clarity, maturity, single-minded 
> > compassion and patience -- that Judy has manifested over the 
years in 
> > trying to show the critics their blind-spots and in the process 
> > putting up with their complete incomprehension and practically 
> > ceaseless abuse; she is far more of a Bodhisattva than I will 
ever 
> > be. 
> > 
> > (This too is perfect!) :-)
> 
> Good god, what a creepy thing to say.
> 
> If there's anyone around here with endless patience and compassion 
in the face of abuse it's 
> Curtis.

Yes, certainly; Curtis too has shown a great deal of patience and 
compassion, and I wouldn't call him one of those dealing out 
practically ceaseless abuse. 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And then they actually expect us to believe that they're
> enlightened.
what are you smoking? This is a foolish and incorrect statement.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

Rory,

This interaction including Marek and Turq's comments on it has been
one of the most fruitful for me on FFL.  I want to start by thanking
you for taking the time for making such a detailed response.  I think
I understand your points better and you drew good lines where we
disagree. But the whole spirit of maintaining rapport that your post
maintains is something I really appreciate.  Since we were discussing
feelings a bit, I felt respected and that you genuinely desire to
understand what I am saying.  Very cool and thank you for that.

I think the psychological model that you have found useful in your own
life is being applied to mine. In my view it does not apply but you
may be seeing something else. I do recognize that we all have blind
spots which is what makes posting here so valuable.  I have learned a
lot here.

When I left MMY it was not out of being disillusioned or feeling
cheated by him.  It was a continuation of my interest in discovery
that lead me outside his system.  If I felt hurt it was from my
previous movement friends not understanding that I had not turned into
the devil, but was positively enjoying other ways to view the
experiences in meditation. It was naive of me to think it was possible
to maintain discussions since I had viewed people who left the
movement as "negative" when I was into it myself.  Through the years
those friendships got replaced and I don't feel hurt by their
rejection.  It was the only move they could make and stay as devoted
as they were (and some are).

The reason I am not hurt my MMY is because he took me on a fantastic
ride.  He was a bit manipulative and was "using" us, but this is not
so uncommon for ambitious older people exploiting innocent youth for
their own benefit.  I give him a pass that he probably believes most
of his own rap, but I don't view him as the most honest guy in the
world or saintly in any way.  I don't think he has much human
compassion or capacity to respect and love other people as equals.  I
suspect this is a disorder.  So I don't think he has much of a choice
in how he operates.  Should I be hurt if, as a frog, I get stung by
the scorpion riding on my back? 

So I have made my peace and mostly enjoy the good things from my past
experiences in the movement.  It made me a hell of a lecturer with so
much public speaking experience and that has benefited the way I
present my music act.  I am very glad that I spent the years rounding,
so I have a grasp of what people are talking about with how compelling
mystical experiences are.  Posting here with people with all sorts of
versions of relationship with our past movement lives has been really
healing for me.

I want to address one point you made in your post directly:

ME: > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him. It is
because I think he is wrong.

Rory:
Yes, you do think he is wrong, and that you know better, and I am
absolutely certain that you are right; that that is true. Our
conceptual understanding/framework of what MMY has said is absolutely
false. There's a simpler truth you have been articulating,
where "enlightenment" and "ignorance" are utterly irrelevant,
and "spiritual experience" itself is irrelevant, and your own self
knows your own self best, and so on. These are some of the keynotes
of "Brahman," which he also has talked about, as much as one can talk
about the utterly indescribable :-)

Me:  I don't believe that I know better than MMY concerning human
consciousness.  I have found some models more useful than his, but I
am far from understanding human consciousness.  I consider the
contribution of traditional practices to be valuable.  I think there
are important contributions from more modern sources.  This is a life
long fascination for me, and although I don't consider Vedic knowledge
in any form to be a complete understanding of human consciousness, I
respect its contribution to man's thought.  I think there are probably
some more intellectual presentations and less commercially oriented
ones than MMY's, but his was the one I studied in depth. In any case I
don't resent that I view his perspective as flawed.  It was a stepping
stone for me and I really enjoyed my life in the movement and was
satisfied with my own experiences while in TM.  I just view them
differently now.

Oh one more:

RORY: And I with you. FWIW, to me you are showing many of the earmarks 
> of "Brahman" -- but I really couldn't care less, and I suspect you 
> probably couldn't either. Great joke, isn't it?!

ME: I may not have gained the "enlightened" state that I dreamed of in
my youth, but growing older has given me all the self knowledge I need
to enjoy a great life.  I believe that the perspective I sought in my
teens and 20's was really just the centered feeling of self
actualization that years of living provide.  I am at home in the world
and at peace with myself as a non cosmically conscious, ordinary guy.
 It is more than enough and I am grateful for it.

Thanks for keepi

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Rory:
> > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
> > Barry -- where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; 
> > one is coming from a place of ungrounded attack. 

But as I pointed out to Rory in email (and he failed 
to grasp), and as Curtis points out so well below, often
I think we are *not* coming from a "place of attack." We 
are merely coming from a "place" of *not cutting Maharishi 
and his ideas any more slack than we would cut anyone else*.

Others on this forum often *perceive* this as an attack.

They consider Maharishi and his ideas "special." The ideas 
come, after all, from someone they consider an enlightened 
being, and to whom they feel the gratitude and devotion of 
a "follower." Curtis and I are not followers of Maharishi; 
we *don't* consider him "our teacher," or "special" in any 
way. He's Just A Guy, and his ideas are Just Ideas.

I think I've exchanged enough ideas with Curtis to be able
to say that he finds *nothing* "insulting" or "attacking"
in this stance. Neither do I. And yet, when we treat 
Maharishi here on FFL *as* Just A Guy, or his ideas as Just
Ideas, we are often accused of "attacking" him. Both Rory 
and Jim (not to mention Judy) do this on a regular basis.

> > What the critic tends to miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally 
> > *not* defending MMY and the TMO; we're just pointing out *that the 
> > critic is attacking in an unbalanced manner*. 

As *you* perceive "balance." As I pointed out above, if 
that perception of "balance" includes giving Maharishi or
his ideas a deference that you would not give to the some-
one else here on FFL, or to their ideas, then the person
who is "unbalanced" is YOU, not the person you are 
criticizing.

Again, I have often found that the things that Rory, Jim,
and Judy *consider* "attacks" are Curtis and I not being
as deferential to Maharishi as they are. We don't treat
him as "special" in any way, and THAT constitutes an 
"attack" against him in their minds.

> > Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut slack for Thai 
> > beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than you 
> > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
> 
> Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different 
> sides of the street IMO. 

To some extent, I agree. However, as I have pointed out 
above, I think that Rory *often* overreacts to what Curtis
and I see as treating Maharishi as Just A Guy and interprets
that as "attacking" him.

> I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to and have already 
> written about it.  I do not accept that she is just pointing out 
> when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor. I agree that 
> her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's teaching.  
> It is a style of relating to people that is content free, MMY 
> is just a prop. IMO it is the personal assertion of power and
> will that is the the motivator. It is not philosophical at all, 
> it is a more primal drive in play. Just my 2 cents.

Two more cents here. What he said.

> What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that 
> has been useful for you on other people. But reducing philo-
> sophical positions to emotions strips them of the important 
> content. 

Not to mention what happens when you project *your* emotions
about a topic onto someone else who may have a completely 
different emotional relationship (or the lack of one) to 
the same topic. 

> For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be 
> falsely perceived as an "attack": "MMY is incorrect in his 
> understanding of human consciousness. He has misapplied an 
> ancient framework to mental states and processes that we 
> understand better though the insights of modern psychology."  
> I make this statement without any personal attack on MMY as a 
> person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's teaching. If 
> you try to reduce this position to my emotional state you miss 
> the whole point. If you argue that I am wrong because I am
> just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you 
> are making an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather 
> than dealing with what the person has said.  

This is a *really* important point, the one that is most
often missed completely here on this forum.

If you were "intellectually honest," you might counter
Curtis' assertion above by providing examples of how
one thought that Maharishi's ideas were *not* a misunder-
standing, or how they were *not* misapplied. 

But the instant you segue into saying that Curtis is 
"damaged" for having said it, or is suffering from some 
lingering "anger" towards Maharishi for having said it,
or is "intellectually dishonest" for having said it, or
is actually "lying" by saying it, you have descended to
the level of ad hominem argument or actual insu

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff"  wrote:
> >> Along these same lines, I will say right here that I do *not* 
have 
> > the particular gifts -- the clarity, maturity, single-minded 
> > compassion and patience -- that Judy has manifested over the 
years in 
> > trying to show the critics their blind-spots and in the process 
> > putting up with their complete incomprehension and practically 
> > ceaseless abuse; she is far more of a Bodhisattva than I will 
ever 
> > be. 
> > 
> > (This too is perfect!) :-)
> 
> Good god, what a creepy thing to say.
> 
> If there's anyone around here with endless patience and compassion 
in the face of abuse it's 
> Curtis.

Don't worry about Curtis. He is busy planning "condoms-on-rudraksha-
mala-parties" in Fairfield and thus finally accomplishing 200% of 
life !

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Along these same lines, I will say right here that I do *not* have 
> the particular gifts -- the clarity, maturity, single-minded 
> compassion and patience -- that Judy has manifested over the years in 
> trying to show the critics their blind-spots and in the process 
> putting up with their complete incomprehension and practically 
> ceaseless abuse; she is far more of a Bodhisattva than I will ever 
> be. 
> 
> (This too is perfect!) :-)

Good god, what a creepy thing to say.

If there's anyone around here with endless patience and compassion in the face 
of abuse it's 
Curtis. 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

>
> Rory
> > 
> > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was 
attempting 
> > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently 
willful 
> > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my 
current 
> > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> > understanding of the self. 
> 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and
> "enlightenment" that you seem to be making.  Referring to me as
> "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in
> context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a state 
of
> consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your
> experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that.  But
> assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate
> questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make.  You get 
the
> equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no 
more
> no less.  

Rory says:
Where are you getting that I am calling me enlightened and you 
ignorant, Curtis? When I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon it 
was when I was trying to point out the self-evident perfection *to 
someone who was not Curtis*. I have since then noticed the blind-spot 
phenomenon *in myself*. Does this make me ignorant? Well, it means I 
have blind-spots, as (as far as I can tell) we all do. Period. 
Overall "enlightenment" or "ignorance" -- however we may define them 
or refuse their meaningfulness -- and personally, I have no problem 
with refusing to make any distinction between "enlightenment" 
and "ignorance" -- *are not the issue here.*

Rory said earlier:
> > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
Barry -- 
> > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is 
> > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends 
to 
> > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and 
the 
> > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an 
> > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut 
slack 
> > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than 
you 
> > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
 
>Curtis said: First of all you and Judy are working completely 
different sides
> of the street IMO.  I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to
> and have already written about it.  I do not accept that she is 
just 
> pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor.  I
> agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's
> teaching.  It is a style of relating to people that is content free,
> MMY is just a prop.  IMO it is the personal assertion of power and
> will that is the the motivator.  It is not philosophical at all, it 
is
> a more primal drive in play.  Just my 2 cents.

Yes, we'll have to agree to differ on that one. FWIW I kind of saw 
Judy as a "logic-piranha" when I first ran into her and she shredded 
the nice anti-TM arguments I had clothed my resentment with, leaving 
me bare-boned, but as I saw where she was coming from, and healed the 
core discontents she revealed, I came to see her beautiful clarity 
and balance more and more deeply, and now I am in total awe of the 
divine grace manifesting in Her presence.

Curtis:
> What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that has
> been useful for you on other people.  But reducing philosophical
> positions to emotions strips them of the important content. 

Rory:
Well, I found that *my* important content was actually just badly-
fitting drapery around a core of discontent. YMMV, of course.
 
Curtis:
> For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be 
falsely
> perceived as an "attack":  "MMY is incorrect in his understanding of
> human consciousness.  He has misapplied an ancient framework to 
mental
> states and processes that we understand better though the insights 
of
> modern psychology."  I make this statement without any personal 
attack
> on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's
> teaching.  

Rory:
My response to this would be, how on earth could we ever *know* 
whether what you say is true or not, except for each of us 
individually, in this moment, as a personal truth? What I am hearing 
as a subtext is, "I, Curtis, know better than MMY does about my own 
state(s) of consciousness." And personally, I, Rory, say -- good for 
you! That's what self-reference (i.e. "Brahman") is all about! But 
the whole "misapplied an ancient framework ... that we understand 
better through modern psychology..." As Borat would say, "Not so 
much" -- that part just feels like a socially-acceptable (but 
unprovable) way to say what I think (and hope) I *hear* you really 
sayi

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

Thanks for your response! And mine below

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Jim, thanks, and here's my pong to your ping.

Ping pong is my favorite game!
 
> You wrote: " not only does Realization feel good, and lead to the 
> unmistakable conclusion that one owns the seat of all knowledge, 
but 
> that this feeling if valid also generates sustainable benefits to 
the 
> experiencer,  above and beyond the benefits accrued through any 
other 
> state of consciousness."
> 
> Okay, a couple of things: you say "if valid" (i.e., the feeling of 
> owning the seat of all knowledge), which seems to be another way 
of 
> asserting the absolute nature of the realization, still based 
solely 
> on your experience of it, including whatever the collateral 
benefits 
> are.  I'm not doubting the authenticity of the "feeling", I'm just 
> agreeing with Curtis (or at least I think I'm agreeing with 
Curtis) 
> that there is no way that that anyone can verify the validity of 
> anyone else's realization.  If there was then we'd all be able to 
> agree that Maharishi (or you or Rory or Swami G. or whomever) was 
or 
> was not Realized.  (If there was anyone else to begin with, that 
is.)

I agree completely. When I said "if valid" it is based solely on my 
own experience, not to judge whether I or anyone else is enlightened 
from another's point of view. Just that I found that we can all 
imagine whatever we want but that there are definite signs if one 
has truly reached the goal, that one can self validate with. Then we 
can validate only for ourselves where we are.

Of course the UC that we incorporate when realized kind of skews the 
above statement in a delightful way, but that's another discussion.
 
> Secondly, what do feel are the benefits that accrue from 
realization 
> other than realization itself?  The subjective state *is* the 
> benefit, isn't it?

Well experience of the absolute while pleasant enough by itself only 
comes into its own, only serves the Divine purpose if realized in 
activity, so the benefits I am talking about is just to live a life 
of no effort whatsoever, so that no matter what is going on, it is 
the place we feel most comfortable. Tangible proof of this, again 
only for the realized experiencer, is that all desires are fulfilled 
easily and quickly.
 
> Also, I agree with you that when there is any experience of 
> awakening, no matter how transitory, the hook would seem to have 
been 
> set and the search for its permanency might begin in earnest.  At 
> least that's been many folks' experience, though Curtis at this 
point 
> in time, seems to have come to a different conclusion regardless 
of 
> how much he has enjoyed (or enjoys) what many would designate 
> as 'spiritual' experiences or transient awakening.

Curtis as far as I can tell, lives his life in the present. There is 
some conflict resolving East vs Western thought patterns, but who am 
I to say? I'll leave that to Curtis.
 
> As re your feeling of having been in tune with the universe after 
> some herbal ingestion, 

Om Shiva.

I don't doubt it one bit, regardless of 
> whether or not you experienced hand tremors of felt too impaired 
to 
> drive; motor skills are not definitive of realization.  Moreover, 
> realization is the definition of ubiquitous; it always surprises 
me 
> how we can maintain ignorance for as long as we do.  Herbs or 
prayer 
> or sex or mantra or a good bowel movement (or, as Maharishi once 
> said, the smokey exhaust fumes from a bus) are easily enough to 
tip 
> the balance to enlightenment or refresh the spirit with a taste of 
> awakening.

Yes, I am making the distinction that a temporary state of 
Realization may occur for whatever reason. Only that it will fade 
away if not permanent. btw, the ingestion spoken of earlier rhymes 
with rogaine too. I saw the possiblity for misinterpretation after 
posting. 
 
> The point that I believe Curtis was making (and the one I feel I'm 
in 
> agreement with) is that there is nothing outside of the self that 
can 
> be a basis of verification.  

Exactly right!

Thanks for replying.
> 
> Marek
> 
> Thanks
>
My pleasure! :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was 
attempting 
> to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently 
willful 
> (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my current 
> observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> understanding of the self. 
> 
> I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from Barry -
- 
> where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is 
> coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends to 
> miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and 
the 
> TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an 
> unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut 
slack 
> for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than 
you 
> do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
> 
> Personally, I've noticed that much if not all of my suffering -- my 
> reactive residue -- has come from places where I falsely assumed 
> responsibility for something, identified with something that was 
> actually not my business. I used to actually feel pain, for 
example, 
> when driving through my neighborhood and seeing a downright ugly 
> house. How could the architect be so stupid as to design such a God-
> awful monstrosity, and the home-owner so blind as to choose it, 
etc., 
> etc.? I finally realized *I am not responsible for the classically 
> aesthetic perfection of my neighborhood* -- it is what it is, 
period. 
> Same for BushCo and so on. What a relief!
> 
> I'd write more, but my wife really wants to go out for brunch *now* 
> so.. to be continued! :-)
 
(OK, that was quite a meal -- if anyone should decide to visit 
Portland, Maine, I'd recommend Bintliff's for brunch! All their meals 
are works of art, and their raspberry almond pancakes with maple 
syrup are quite a treat! :-) )

Anyhow, after I gave up wishing the neighborhood architecture were 
different, I became free to appreciate it as it is, and lately I've 
seen the creator's intent, the perfect Love, that actually resides 
even in an "ugly" house. Now I am still undertaking projects to 
beautify the architecture of my hometown, but I'm not coming from a 
place of anger and suffering, of denial of the perfection of what is. 
It IS perfect, and I'm happy to do my small part to expand the 
perfection still more :-)

And I found the same for my fulminations about MMY and the TMO -- in 
the end, all the dramas and "foolishness" therein that I was getting 
so riled up about *was not my business*. I simply had reactive 
residues, areas in the TMO which I still subtly identified with and 
thus took as a personal insult when yet another "crazy" mandate was 
handed down and swallowed whole -- I *had* to put them down, as these 
were the only two choices I saw: blind acceptance or righteous 
rejection. I completely missed the third choice -- unattached 
equanimity: it's just another odd custom that has nothing to do with 
me. When I let go of my illusory responsibility to *change* all this, 
and accepted my non-judgemental responsibility in *upholding* what is 
as Yet Another Fun Drama, everything changed. Letting go of reactive 
identification and judgment, I found the dynamic stillness of Love; 
in Love I found the innocent, radiant, primordial Self behind all the 
dramas.

So with this simple innocence everywhere, there truly is nothing to 
defend. And yet I find that I *do* at times still react angrily, 
righteously and/or defensively, and when I do, with a little inquiry 
I generally find I am still defending some old and unre-examined 
subtitles I have taken for Gospel, some hitherto unconscious blind-
spot. 

Another way I've been able to tell I am approaching a blind-spot is 
if I suddenly get very stupid; that is, my wife has had to explain 
something over and over about six different ways for me to get it, if 
I ever get it. I also have very slick and glib defense mechanisms, so 
her job is not an easy one, although I am trying to become more 
quickly aware of these slick-patches and thus to help her help me. 

Along these same lines, I will say right here that I do *not* have 
the particular gifts -- the clarity, maturity, single-minded 
compassion and patience -- that Judy has manifested over the years in 
trying to show the critics their blind-spots and in the process 
putting up with their complete incomprehension and practically 
ceaseless abuse; she is far more of a Bodhisattva than I will ever 
be. 

(This too is perfect!) :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

"The point that I believe Curtis was making (and the one I feel I'm in
agreement with) is that there is nothing outside of the self that can
be a basis of verification. Thanks for replying."

Marek,

Your response to my earlier post was so excellent and clear that I am
taking some time to respond. I am so glad to have your mind at work on
this topic!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Comment below:
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> >  wrote:
> 
> **snip**
> 
> > > 
> > > Just some haphazard thoughts re the above and the recent remarks 
> > > shared between Jim and Curtis, too.
> > > 
> > > Seems to me that India in particular had a whole lot of pretty 
> > smart 
> > > monkeys who early on who figured out that if you did this thing, 
> > or 
> > > that thing, one technique or another for a certain amount of time 
> > you 
> > > could get to a 'place' where you 'realized' your self and the 
> > world 
> > > in a whole new (and fantastically integrated) way.  My 
> > understanding, 
> > > Curtis, is that you feel that 'that' state is just another state 
> > of 
> > > experiencing that doesn't carry any greater weight or 
> significance 
> > > outside of the experiencer, correct?  In other words, it is not 
> an 
> > > ultimate state of being or realization that could be considered 
> as 
> > > the apogee of human awareness, but rather a state of 
> consciousness 
> > > that provides the experiencer with a particular and peculiar 
> > > awareness but does not necessarily invoke any 'higher' functions 
> > or 
> > > evolutionary advantage.  I agree with that, but true or not (in 
> an 
> > > Absolute sense) it certainly seems to satisfy and it's 
> > understandable 
> > > why so many people would tout it's value and pursue it's 
> > appreciation.
> > > 
> > > The one phrase of Maharishi's that always seems particularly apt 
> > to 
> > > me in regards to 'enlightenment' states (and also congruent with 
> > my 
> > > understanding of your epistemological position) is "enjoying the 
> > > fruit of all knowledge".  In other words, the state that 
> Maharishi 
> > > (and other sages past and present) endorse (i.e., Enlightenment), 
> > > imparts the sense and feeling of 'knowing everything', 
> > > finally 'getting IT', 'everything making perfect sense' -- the 
> > > visceral appreciation of the perfection and wholeness of All 
> > > notwithstanding apparent dissensions and divisions.  That is 
> > really 
> > > an attractive point of view and it makes perfect sense to me that 
> > > when some of the monkeys of old figured that one out they wanted 
> > to 
> > > share that info along with the smokey herbs and the fermented 
> > coconut 
> > > juice that was also being passed around.  Seems to me that the 
> > great 
> > > spiritual lineages must have begun just that way.
> > > 
> > > There's no way that you can draw any greater inference beyond the 
> > > feeling that being in that state imparts to the apparent 
> > individual 
> > > who claims the state.  But that state of consciousness or 
> > attention 
> > > is so enticing, so sweet and so perfect, and so available and 
> > > (seemingly) self evident that, of course, if 'you' happened to 
> > have 
> > > stumbled by accident or good fortune upon it, you would want to 
> > tell 
> > > people about it and share it and teach it, etc.  And I think it's 
> > > perfectly understandable that you'd be nonplussed when people 
> > > wouldn't bother to listen or believe you about how absolutely 
> > > wonderful and perfect that state of awareness is and, moreover, 
> > even 
> > > argued with you about its absolute worth or value.
> > > 
> > > Who knows if in the state of Realization one does 'know 
> > everything' 
> > > or it just feels that way, but if the feeling is real (to the 
> > > experiencer) then there's no way for the 'feeler' to gainsay the 
> > > feeling.  So in that sense, it seems emminently reasonable to 
> > speak 
> > > about the feeling just as it is, a feeling of Realization and 
> > > Completeness that overtakes all.  If it 'actually' has no greater 
> > > value doesn't matter.  
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the above is not as clear as I would have liked but now 
> > I've 
> > > got to go to jail and visit with some clients before lockdown.
> > > 
> > > Marek
> > >
> > You bring out a really good point in that, yes, if it feels good, 
> we 
> > as humans (aka smarter monkeys, walking fish, birds with metal 
> > tools, etc.) enjoy sharing it.
> > 
> > The other thing that occurred to me from your post was that not 
> only 
> > does Realization feel good, and lead to the unmistakable conclusion 
> > that one owns the seat of all knowledge, but that this feeling if 
> > valid also generates sustainable benefits to the experiencer,  
> above 
> > and beyond the benefits accrued through any other state o

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Marek Reavis]

Comment below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
>  wrote:

**snip**

> > 
> > Just some haphazard thoughts re the above and the recent remarks 
> > shared between Jim and Curtis, too.
> > 
> > Seems to me that India in particular had a whole lot of pretty 
> smart 
> > monkeys who early on who figured out that if you did this thing, 
> or 
> > that thing, one technique or another for a certain amount of time 
> you 
> > could get to a 'place' where you 'realized' your self and the 
> world 
> > in a whole new (and fantastically integrated) way.  My 
> understanding, 
> > Curtis, is that you feel that 'that' state is just another state 
> of 
> > experiencing that doesn't carry any greater weight or 
significance 
> > outside of the experiencer, correct?  In other words, it is not 
an 
> > ultimate state of being or realization that could be considered 
as 
> > the apogee of human awareness, but rather a state of 
consciousness 
> > that provides the experiencer with a particular and peculiar 
> > awareness but does not necessarily invoke any 'higher' functions 
> or 
> > evolutionary advantage.  I agree with that, but true or not (in 
an 
> > Absolute sense) it certainly seems to satisfy and it's 
> understandable 
> > why so many people would tout it's value and pursue it's 
> appreciation.
> > 
> > The one phrase of Maharishi's that always seems particularly apt 
> to 
> > me in regards to 'enlightenment' states (and also congruent with 
> my 
> > understanding of your epistemological position) is "enjoying the 
> > fruit of all knowledge".  In other words, the state that 
Maharishi 
> > (and other sages past and present) endorse (i.e., Enlightenment), 
> > imparts the sense and feeling of 'knowing everything', 
> > finally 'getting IT', 'everything making perfect sense' -- the 
> > visceral appreciation of the perfection and wholeness of All 
> > notwithstanding apparent dissensions and divisions.  That is 
> really 
> > an attractive point of view and it makes perfect sense to me that 
> > when some of the monkeys of old figured that one out they wanted 
> to 
> > share that info along with the smokey herbs and the fermented 
> coconut 
> > juice that was also being passed around.  Seems to me that the 
> great 
> > spiritual lineages must have begun just that way.
> > 
> > There's no way that you can draw any greater inference beyond the 
> > feeling that being in that state imparts to the apparent 
> individual 
> > who claims the state.  But that state of consciousness or 
> attention 
> > is so enticing, so sweet and so perfect, and so available and 
> > (seemingly) self evident that, of course, if 'you' happened to 
> have 
> > stumbled by accident or good fortune upon it, you would want to 
> tell 
> > people about it and share it and teach it, etc.  And I think it's 
> > perfectly understandable that you'd be nonplussed when people 
> > wouldn't bother to listen or believe you about how absolutely 
> > wonderful and perfect that state of awareness is and, moreover, 
> even 
> > argued with you about its absolute worth or value.
> > 
> > Who knows if in the state of Realization one does 'know 
> everything' 
> > or it just feels that way, but if the feeling is real (to the 
> > experiencer) then there's no way for the 'feeler' to gainsay the 
> > feeling.  So in that sense, it seems emminently reasonable to 
> speak 
> > about the feeling just as it is, a feeling of Realization and 
> > Completeness that overtakes all.  If it 'actually' has no greater 
> > value doesn't matter.  
> > 
> > Perhaps the above is not as clear as I would have liked but now 
> I've 
> > got to go to jail and visit with some clients before lockdown.
> > 
> > Marek
> >
> You bring out a really good point in that, yes, if it feels good, 
we 
> as humans (aka smarter monkeys, walking fish, birds with metal 
> tools, etc.) enjoy sharing it.
> 
> The other thing that occurred to me from your post was that not 
only 
> does Realization feel good, and lead to the unmistakable conclusion 
> that one owns the seat of all knowledge, but that this feeling if 
> valid also generates sustainable benefits to the experiencer,  
above 
> and beyond the benefits accrued through any other state of 
> consciousness. 
> 
> This is tested via the prolonged, laborious and finely tuned 
seeking 
> that occurs prior to the state being completely established. Once 
> having tasted, however fleetingly, the state of Realization, 
because 
> of the fulfillment experienced, the hook so to speak, we spend our 
> time after that, testing the experience the next time it happens in 
> terms of duration and scope. It is through these tests that we are 
> able to ultimately verify established Realization as the ultimate 
> fulfillment. 
> 
> I'll never forget a time several decades ago, after having ingested 
> a substance (rhymes with joke), I 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments below:
> 
> **
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Rory
> > > 
> > > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was 
> attempting 
> > > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently 
> willful 
> > > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> > > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my 
> current 
> > > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> > > understanding of the self. 
> > 
> > Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and
> > "enlightenment" that you seem to be making.  Referring to me as
> > "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in
> > context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a 
state 
> of
> > consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your
> > experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that.  But
> > assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate
> > questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make.  You 
get 
> the
> > equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, 
no 
> more
> > no less.  
> > 
> > > 
> > > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
> Barry -- 
> > > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one 
is 
> > > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic 
tends 
> to 
> > > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY 
and 
> the 
> > > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in 
an 
> > > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you 
cut 
> slack 
> > > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more 
than 
> you 
> > > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used 
to 
> > > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
> > 
> > Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different 
sides
> > of the street IMO.  I have a different opinion of what Judy is 
up to
> > and have already written about it.  I do not accept that she is 
> just 
> > pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor.  
I
> > agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's
> > teaching.  It is a style of relating to people that is content 
free,
> > MMY is just a prop.  IMO it is the personal assertion of power 
and
> > will that is the the motivator.  It is not philosophical at all, 
it 
> is
> > a more primal drive in play.  Just my 2 cents.
> > 
> > What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that 
has
> > been useful for you on other people.  But reducing philosophical
> > positions to emotions strips them of the important content. 
> > 
> > For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be 
> falsely
> > perceived as an "attack":  "MMY is incorrect in his 
understanding of
> > human consciousness.  He has misapplied an ancient framework to 
> mental
> > states and processes that we understand better though the 
insights 
> of
> > modern psychology."  I make this statement without any personal 
> attack
> > on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's
> > teaching.  If you try to reduce this position to my emotional 
state
> > you miss the whole point.  If you argue that I am wrong because 
I am
> > just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are 
> making
> > an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing 
with
> > what the person has said.  I refer to all such arguments 
as "poopy
> > pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued 
in a
> > school yard.  The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply 
pants" 
> and
> > runs away. It is philosophically bogus.  It also leads to a quick
> > infinite regress.  If it is true that our philosophy can be 
reduced 
> to
> > emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just 
be
> > your own repressed past experience about people claiming that 
MMY is
> > wrong.  Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point
> > wouldn't it?
> > 
> > I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph 
presents. 
> > It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks 
epistemological
> > implications for me.
> > 
> > My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him.  It is 
because 
> I
> > think he is wrong.  I had great experiences for 15 years and do 
not
> > dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on.  Young 
people 
> are
> > usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs.  
I 
> got
> > a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit 
long, 
> if I
> > had my druthers, I gained a lot.  I also gained a lot from 
deciding
> > that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on
> > consciousness.  I take responsibility for my voluntary 
participation
> > for years, and my choice to leave when I di

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Marek Reavis]

Comments below:

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rory
> > 
> > Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was 
attempting 
> > to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently 
willful 
> > (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> > maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my 
current 
> > observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> > understanding of the self. 
> 
> Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and
> "enlightenment" that you seem to be making.  Referring to me as
> "ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in
> context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a state 
of
> consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your
> experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that.  But
> assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate
> questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make.  You get 
the
> equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no 
more
> no less.  
> 
> > 
> > I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from 
Barry -- 
> > where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is 
> > coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends 
to 
> > miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and 
the 
> > TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an 
> > unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut 
slack 
> > for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than 
you 
> > do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> > identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 
> 
> Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different sides
> of the street IMO.  I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to
> and have already written about it.  I do not accept that she is 
just 
> pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor.  I
> agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's
> teaching.  It is a style of relating to people that is content free,
> MMY is just a prop.  IMO it is the personal assertion of power and
> will that is the the motivator.  It is not philosophical at all, it 
is
> a more primal drive in play.  Just my 2 cents.
> 
> What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that has
> been useful for you on other people.  But reducing philosophical
> positions to emotions strips them of the important content. 
> 
> For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be 
falsely
> perceived as an "attack":  "MMY is incorrect in his understanding of
> human consciousness.  He has misapplied an ancient framework to 
mental
> states and processes that we understand better though the insights 
of
> modern psychology."  I make this statement without any personal 
attack
> on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's
> teaching.  If you try to reduce this position to my emotional state
> you miss the whole point.  If you argue that I am wrong because I am
> just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are 
making
> an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing with
> what the person has said.  I refer to all such arguments as "poopy
> pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued in a
> school yard.  The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply pants" 
and
> runs away. It is philosophically bogus.  It also leads to a quick
> infinite regress.  If it is true that our philosophy can be reduced 
to
> emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just be
> your own repressed past experience about people claiming that MMY is
> wrong.  Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point
> wouldn't it?
> 
> I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph presents. 
> It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks epistemological
> implications for me.
> 
> My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him.  It is because 
I
> think he is wrong.  I had great experiences for 15 years and do not
> dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on.  Young people 
are
> usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs.  I 
got
> a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit long, 
if I
> had my druthers, I gained a lot.  I also gained a lot from deciding
> that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on
> consciousness.  I take responsibility for my voluntary participation
> for years, and my choice to leave when I did. Changing my mind about
> someone doesn't make me angry at the person. Live and learn is my
> perspective, I am a work on progress and each stage is important 
for me.
> 
> I appreciate your taking the time to explore these topics in more
> detail.  Concerning me cutting other cultures more slack for their
> beliefs

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

Rory
> 
> Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was attempting 
> to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently willful 
> (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
> maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my current 
> observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
> understanding of the self. 

Me: I don't recognize the distinctions between "ignorance" and
"enlightenment" that you seem to be making.  Referring to me as
"ignorant" about specific information may be a true statement in
context, but referring to me as "maintaining ignorance" as a state of
consciousness seems unnecessarily rude. I never question your
experiences, you seem to value them and high five for that.  But
assuming that it has given you a superior insight in to ultimate
questions about life is not a jump I am willing to make.  You get the
equal respect that all articulate interesting posters deserve, no more
no less.  

> 
> I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from Barry -- 
> where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is 
> coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends to 
> miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and the 
> TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an 
> unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut slack 
> for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than you 
> do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
> identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 

Me: First of all you and Judy are working completely different sides
of the street IMO.  I have a different opinion of what Judy is up to
and have already written about it.  I do not accept that she is just 
pointing out when a critic is attacking in an imbalanced manor.  I
agree that her motivation has little to do with defending MMY's
teaching.  It is a style of relating to people that is content free,
MMY is just a prop.  IMO it is the personal assertion of power and
will that is the the motivator.  It is not philosophical at all, it is
a more primal drive in play.  Just my 2 cents.

What you seem to be doing it trying out a mental framework that has
been useful for you on other people.  But reducing philosophical
positions to emotions strips them of the important content. 

For example I can make a statement with no emotion that can be falsely
perceived as an "attack":  "MMY is incorrect in his understanding of
human consciousness.  He has misapplied an ancient framework to mental
states and processes that we understand better though the insights of
modern psychology."  I make this statement without any personal attack
on MMY as a person, it is just my considered opinion on MMY's
teaching.  If you try to reduce this position to my emotional state
you miss the whole point.  If you argue that I am wrong because I am
just expressing repressed emotions of being hurt by MMY you are making
an ad hominem argument attacking the person rather than dealing with
what the person has said.  I refer to all such arguments as "poopy
pants" because this is what happens when someone is out argued in a
school yard.  The person shouts "Yeah but you are a pooply pants" and
runs away. It is philosophically bogus.  It also leads to a quick
infinite regress.  If it is true that our philosophy can be reduced to
emotional states, then your reaction to what I wrote could just be
your own repressed past experience about people claiming that MMY is
wrong.  Focusing on that would be an unfair dodge of your point
wouldn't it?

I agree with the physiological insight the last paragraph presents. 
It is an excellent psychological insight but lacks epistemological
implications for me.

My criticism of MMY is not from feeling hurt by him.  It is because I
think he is wrong.  I had great experiences for 15 years and do not
dwell on the monkey business that sometimes when on.  Young people are
usually exploited by older people till they get their sea legs.  I got
a lot out of my participation and although it went on a bit long, if I
had my druthers, I gained a lot.  I also gained a lot from deciding
that I was mistaken in thinking of MMY as an authority on
consciousness.  I take responsibility for my voluntary participation
for years, and my choice to leave when I did. Changing my mind about
someone doesn't make me angry at the person. Live and learn is my
perspective, I am a work on progress and each stage is important for me.

I appreciate your taking the time to explore these topics in more
detail.  Concerning me cutting other cultures more slack for their
beliefs, I don't as far as sharing their beliefs.  I know my own
lines.  The people I am describing come from non evangelical South
East Asian cultures, they never press their beliefs on me or try to
convince me.  They are Buddhists who couldn't care less what I believe
and don't express superiority over me

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > > The real problem with people claiming self evident truth is 
that
> > > people don't come up with the same ones.  
> > 
> > Right, because there is only one self evident truth.
> 
> That infidels must die to protect God's true teaching,  right?
> 
>  The others are 
> > mirasges built out of a lack of complete integration with the 
body.
> 
> There are at least 78 different beliefs that must be in place to
> support this statement.  This doesn't mean it is wrong, it means 
it is
> not a simple statement. (the number 78 represents "lots") 
> 
> The next paragraph seems to use proof by analogy.  It redefines
> "truth" in a way that is inconsistent with my  understanding of its
> meaning.  You are applying cognitive functions to unconscious
> processes, but this seems to be more than an analogy for you?
> 
> We are not thinking of the meaning of the word "truth" the same 
way. 
> What you seem to be using the word for is what I would term
> "philosophical perspective supported by mystical subjective 
experiences". 
> 
> I have never doubted the compelling nature of your subjective
> experiences Jim.  I am of the "party on Garth" school when it 
comes to
> other people's experience.  I had enough of my own to know that you
> probably aren't making it up which is a rude assumption of some
> skeptics.  I am only drawing my own lines on what I belief that it
> means.  This is where we go in different directions.  However your
> right to view your own experiences your own way and draw your own
> conclusions about life from them is not being questioned by me.  
But
> because I have my own experience and conclusions in place I am not 
apt
> to grant you superior insight status on life because of what you
> experience.  On the "ultimate questions insight score" I treat us 
as
> exact equals. I feel the same way about MMY. 
> 
> Nice to have some friendly chats with you again Jim.  Our 
differences
> are an asset.   
> 
I agree- what a boring world if everyone thought exactly the same 
stuff. 

Regarding truth as evidenced in the body, what I am doing is drawing 
a direct connection between complete integration of the mind and 
body-- far less common than we think ;-)-- and the resulting state 
of consciousness, which actually transcends any individuality. Once 
the integration between mind and body is completed, it is as if we 
disappear, and what takes over is just the way things are. We no 
longer see our truth- we see the truth, or absolute clarity. A drop 
of water into the ocean and all that.

Having said that, I can read your explanations of the way you see 
things and how it all levels out for you, regardless of who is 
claiming Divine status, all day long. It makes sense and it sounds 
real, and I like that as much as you do.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
> Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
> efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
> and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
> "Maharishi sez."
> 
> That's a good reason, if you believe that what 
> Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is
> cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when 
> you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying
> that you believe that things are true because Maharishi
> said they are true, I think that conveys a different 
> message than the one you think you're sending.
>

I have just spent a month living in a SV home and I have to say I was 
rather taken with it. Obviously, being me, I had to spend a lot of 
time working out why it was such a pleasant environment. There seemd 
to be a definite "rightness" to the place and a deeper silence than 
one would expect when just sitting on my own. But why?

Perhaps it's because the open-plan nature gives one a sense of space. 
The Brahmastan was a nice touch, all that natural light. But I think 
it's the fact it faces due east. It felt to me that the light was 
always "right" and my theory is that when a house is "correctly" 
oriented whatever time of year you get the proper light for the time 
of day.

Sounds like bullshit? Well maybe we are more sensitive to the rhythms 
of nature than we know. Perhaps it's no coincidence that just about 
every neolithic monument I can think of faces due east, stonehenge, 
the pyramids etc. I liked the idea that SV is a link to our ancient 
past in the sense of having to know planting times or just when the 
solstice is for the next festival. Whatever, it felt better than I 
expected, and actually I wasn't expecting anything. 

I was puzzled by the fence though, but if I get round to building one 
myself I would build the little fence and tell myself it's to keep 
the dog in!

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> > The real problem with people claiming self evident truth is that
> > people don't come up with the same ones.  
> 
> Right, because there is only one self evident truth.

That infidels must die to protect God's true teaching,  right?

 The others are 
> mirasges built out of a lack of complete integration with the body.

There are at least 78 different beliefs that must be in place to
support this statement.  This doesn't mean it is wrong, it means it is
not a simple statement. (the number 78 represents "lots") 

The next paragraph seems to use proof by analogy.  It redefines
"truth" in a way that is inconsistent with my  understanding of its
meaning.  You are applying cognitive functions to unconscious
processes, but this seems to be more than an analogy for you?

We are not thinking of the meaning of the word "truth" the same way. 
What you seem to be using the word for is what I would term
"philosophical perspective supported by mystical subjective experiences". 

I have never doubted the compelling nature of your subjective
experiences Jim.  I am of the "party on Garth" school when it comes to
other people's experience.  I had enough of my own to know that you
probably aren't making it up which is a rude assumption of some
skeptics.  I am only drawing my own lines on what I belief that it
means.  This is where we go in different directions.  However your
right to view your own experiences your own way and draw your own
conclusions about life from them is not being questioned by me.  But
because I have my own experience and conclusions in place I am not apt
to grant you superior insight status on life because of what you
experience.  On the "ultimate questions insight score" I treat us as
exact equals. I feel the same way about MMY. 

Nice to have some friendly chats with you again Jim.  Our differences
are an asset.   



 
> 
> Think about self evident truth. The body you inhabit couldn't 
> function without self evident truth. You couldn't operate any of the 
> systems of your body without self evident truth, for what is it in 
> your body and about your body that ensures all of the cells do 
> exactly what they are supposed to, without any rigorous 
> epistimilogical scrutiny? It is self evident truth. The kidney 
> doesn't question whether it is a kidney, or an eye, or an intestine. 
> It always knows that all of its cells are kidney cells. Every thing 
> is just as it is. 
> 
> Just the same when the mind and body are fully integrated, once and 
> for all. The self evident truth emerges as naturally as breath is 
> drawn into and exhaled out of the body. Not thought about or 
> painstakingly constructed. No. Once the body and mind are fully 
> integrated, the truth is naturally there, as clear as a hologram; 
> dynamic and precise.:-)
>

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 
> > FWIW, same here. That's why I get particularly
> > annoyed when he falls back into that intellectually
> > dishonest defensive mode when anything he says is
> > challenged.
> 
> I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this point.
>   
> > 
> > > > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument.  Claiming to 
> > > > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding
> > > > of epistemology.
> > 
> > Something that is, of course, self-evident to Curtis...
> 
> I would hate to bring up the obvious ID mode that this response
> contains, but that would distract me from the point that interests 
me.
> 
> I am not appealing to an argument of self evident truth concerning 
my
> opinion of Rory's use of the term. It is my opinion from his 
writing.  
> 
> The problem with claims of self evident truth is a a central theme 
in
> the history of philosophy, even Vedic thinkers created all sorts of
> systems to verify statements.  Socrates started with "all I know is
> that I know nothing at all" when he began his Socratic method as the
> only sure self evident truth.  Descartes started with "I think
> therefor I am".  If people started with their awareness of being
> conscious as a starting point for knowledge, that would make sense 
to
> me.  But that is not where Rory is stopping.  As soon as you add on
> any other value like, I am experiencing my Self as the ground of 
being
> of the universe you are jumping too many steps to claim self 
evidence
> IMO.  I know you can feel like you are experiencing this but that
> doesn't mean it is more than a subjective experience, or true for
> others.  People use this type of experience to make a lot of
> assumptions about reality based on their belief structure coming 
into
> and out of th experience.

Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was attempting 
to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently willful 
(but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in 
maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my current 
observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my 
understanding of the self. 

I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from Barry -- 
where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is 
coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends to 
miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and the 
TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an 
unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut slack 
for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than you 
do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to 
identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. 

Personally, I've noticed that much if not all of my suffering -- my 
reactive residue -- has come from places where I falsely assumed 
responsibility for something, identified with something that was 
actually not my business. I used to actually feel pain, for example, 
when driving through my neighborhood and seeing a downright ugly 
house. How could the architect be so stupid as to design such a God-
awful monstrosity, and the home-owner so blind as to choose it, etc., 
etc.? I finally realized *I am not responsible for the classically 
aesthetic perfection of my neighborhood* -- it is what it is, period. 
Same for BushCo and so on. What a relief!

I'd write more, but my wife really wants to go out for brunch *now* 
so.. to be continued! :-)

LLL

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real problem with people claiming self evident truth is that
> people don't come up with the same ones.  

Right, because there is only one self evident truth. The others are 
mirasges built out of a lack of complete integration with the body. 

Think about self evident truth. The body you inhabit couldn't 
function without self evident truth. You couldn't operate any of the 
systems of your body without self evident truth, for what is it in 
your body and about your body that ensures all of the cells do 
exactly what they are supposed to, without any rigorous 
epistimilogical scrutiny? It is self evident truth. The kidney 
doesn't question whether it is a kidney, or an eye, or an intestine. 
It always knows that all of its cells are kidney cells. Every thing 
is just as it is. 

Just the same when the mind and body are fully integrated, once and 
for all. The self evident truth emerges as naturally as breath is 
drawn into and exhaled out of the body. Not thought about or 
painstakingly constructed. No. Once the body and mind are fully 
integrated, the truth is naturally there, as clear as a hologram; 
dynamic and precise.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

> 
> FWIW, same here. That's why I get particularly
> annoyed when he falls back into that intellectually
> dishonest defensive mode when anything he says is
> challenged.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this point.
  
> 
> > > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument.  Claiming to 
> > > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding
> > > of epistemology.
> 
> Something that is, of course, self-evident to Curtis...

I would hate to bring up the obvious ID mode that this response
contains, but that would distract me from the point that interests me.

I am not appealing to an argument of self evident truth concerning my
opinion of Rory's use of the term. It is my opinion from his writing.  

The problem with claims of self evident truth is a a central theme in
the history of philosophy, even Vedic thinkers created all sorts of
systems to verify statements.  Socrates started with "all I know is
that I know nothing at all" when he began his Socratic method as the
only sure self evident truth.  Descartes started with "I think
therefor I am".  If people started with their awareness of being
conscious as a starting point for knowledge, that would make sense to
me.  But that is not where Rory is stopping.  As soon as you add on
any other value like, I am experiencing my Self as the ground of being
of the universe you are jumping too many steps to claim self evidence
IMO.  I know you can feel like you are experiencing this but that
doesn't mean it is more than a subjective experience, or true for
others.  People use this type of experience to make a lot of
assumptions about reality based on their belief structure coming into
and out of th experience.

The real problem with people claiming self evident truth is that
people don't come up with the same ones.  We have a group of humans
claiming the sure self evident knowledge that killing infidels is
right.  They are not open to any sort of counter claim.  Claiming self
evident truth is right up there with mistaking the strength of one's
convictions with the likelihood that they are true in causing humans
cognitive problems. I am not a fan of states of mind that make a
person feel that they have a special pipeline to truth without the
need for external validation.  I think humans are in the same shape
doing the best we can to make as good judgments as we can.  Being over
confident about your abilities to "know the truth" internally has
caused a lot of trouble for the human race.  Epistemological humility
is appropriate for all humans. 



>

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness
> > has nothing to do with emotions.
> 
> I liked your recent post pointing out you were cutting slack to
> Thai beliefs that you weren't to TMers', and so on. I think you
> are on the right track with that line of inquiry. I also think
> you generally try to be open, and I respect that immensely. As
> I've said before, of the three pre-eminent TM "critics" here -- 
> you, Barry, and Vaj -- to me you your intellect feels the 
> most "transparent" -- FWIW.

FWIW, same here. That's why I get particularly
annoyed when he falls back into that intellectually
dishonest defensive mode when anything he says is
challenged.

> > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument.  Claiming to 
> > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding
> > of epistemology.

Something that is, of course, self-evident to Curtis...

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
> > are rushing to "pile on"

(All two of them...!)

 has ever mentioned the
> > thing that they're really angry about? 
> 
> I wasn't rushing to "pile on;" I was pointing out that --
> contrary to Judy's view -- IMO the critics *aren't* being 
> intentionally dishonest.

For the record, the intellectual dishonesty
in this instance wasn't Barry's original post,
it was his attempted *defense* of it after I
explained to him that the Vastu fences are
essentially nonfunctional in terms of "hiding"
or keeping the outside world away, which is
what he was criticizing.

> We're all doing the best we can with our ingrained blind-
> spots.

The blind spots highlighted in Barry's initial
post were (1) his loathing of the TMO and (2)
his tendency to interpret whatever he happens
to be criticizing in the worst possible light,
even if there's nothing whatsoever to support
such an interpretation.

(The latter is obviously not limited to his
criticisms of MMY/the TMO/TMers. It appears to
be linked to his lack of self-confidence.)

The following is an excellent example of (2):

> > They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
> > topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity 
> > fences" and the belief that building one can make 
> > you prosperous.
> > No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd
> > have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that
> > fences around an arbitrary property line generate 
> > beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that 
> > the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi
> > said so." So they attack instead.
> 
> God, Turq, I hope you don't really believe this. I couldn't
> care less one way or the other about prosperity fences or
> what MMY says about them. As I pointed out earlier, I just
> bought a house in FF with a SOUTH DOOR. The horror! :-)

I don't either. (Although I'd be interested to
spend some time in a Vastu house to confirm or
refute my preconceptions--but I sure wouldn't
build or buy one before I'd had a very strong
confirmatory experience. In other words, I
think it's highly unlikely, but I wouldn't rule
it out.)

> > Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
> > efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
> > and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
> > "Maharishi sez."
> 
> On the other hand, if someone with such a fence *does*
> believe deeply in their properties, I suspect they will
> warp their reality fields in such a way as to manifest
> a fulfillment of their beliefs, as we all do with one
> thing or another :-)

You'd think Barry would be willing to accept
this, given his recent posts about how methods
of enlightenment and prophecy are all really
just placebo effects. The question is why he
didn't take it into account in the first place.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
> are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the
> thing that they're really angry about? 

I wasn't rushing to "pile on;" I was pointing out that -- contrary to 
Judy's view -- IMO the critics *aren't* being intentionally 
dishonest. We're all doing the best we can with our ingrained blind-
spots.
 
> They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
> topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity 
> fences" and the belief that building one can make 
> you prosperous.
> No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd
> have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that
> fences around an arbitrary property line generate 
> beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that 
> the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi
> said so." So they attack instead.

God, Turq, I hope you don't really believe this. I couldn't care less 
one way or the other about prosperity fences or what MMY says about 
them. As I pointed out earlier, I just bought a house in FF with a 
SOUTH DOOR. The horror! :-)
 
> Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
> efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
> and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
> "Maharishi sez."

On the other hand, if someone with such a fence *does* believe deeply 
in their properties, I suspect they will warp their reality fields in 
such a way as to manifest a fulfillment of their beliefs, as we all 
do with one thing or another :-)
 
> That's a good reason, if you believe that what 
> Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is
> cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when 
> you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying
> that you believe that things are true because Maharishi
> said they are true, I think that conveys a different 
> message than the one you think you're sending.

Why does everyone think it's such a big deal that we have blind-
spots? 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

Rory wrote:

> > I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the 
residual "vasanas" 
> > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie 
any 
> > possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > 
> > It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection of 
what 
> > is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight lines," 
but 
> > their interior space appears to be automatically curved into pre-
set 
> > denial patterns, so that their thoughts automatically "warp off" 
to 
> > either side to avoid perceiving the self-evident Truth directly 
in 
> > front of them. :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness has
> nothing to do with emotions.

I liked your recent post pointing out you were cutting slack to Thai 
beliefs that you weren't to TMers', and so on. I think you are on the 
right track with that line of inquiry. I also think you generally try 
to be open, and I respect that immensely. As I've said before,  of 
the three pre-eminent TM "critics" here -- you, Barry, and Vaj -- to 
me you your intellect feels the most "transparent" -- FWIW.

Rory wrote:

> it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie 
any 
> > possibility of integrity in those areas. 

Curtis wrote:

> This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument.  Claiming to perceive
> "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding of 
epistemology.  

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree here -- for me, the Self is 
self-evident, when the time/space is right for the intellect to 
surrender into the emptifulness and for the self to apperceive 
itself. Don't know much about epistemology, but I suspect it has a 
lack of understanding of the self :-)

> I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some
> psychological flaw Rory.  I give you credit for having good reasons
> for believing the things that you do based on your experiences and
> your conclusions.  There is a way to disagree with a person's POV
> without demonizing the person personally as having a psychological
> flaw or denial patterns.  And a smiley face at the end of a negative
> personal putdown doesn't make it positive.

It wasn't intended as a demonization or as a negative personal 
putdown, Curtis; everyone has vasanas -- it is my own perception 
*based on my own memories* -- if it doesn't fit your worldview, well 
and good -- no harm, no foul!

:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie any 
> possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> 
> It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection of what 
> is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight lines," but 
> their interior space appears to be automatically curved into pre-set 
> denial patterns, so that their thoughts automatically "warp off" to 
> either side to avoid perceiving the self-evident Truth directly in 
> front of them. :-)

Of course, by this same token, I have no doubt whatsoever that I have 
similar "blind spots" or vasana warp-patterns I am as yet unaware of! 
Thank God we multiplied ourself so we can scratch each others' backs! 
Ook, ook! :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual 
> > > > "vasanas" or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained 
> > > > as to belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > > > 
> > > > It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection 
> > > > of what is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight 
> > > > lines," but their interior space appears to be automatically 
> > > > curved into pre-set denial patterns, so that their thoughts 
> > > > automatically "warp off" to either side to avoid perceiving 
> > > > the self-evident Truth directly in front of them. :-)
> > > 
> > > My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness 
> > > has nothing to do with emotions.
> > > 
> > > > it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> > > > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to 
> > > > belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > > 
> > > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to 
> > > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding 
> > > of epistemology.  
> > > 
> > > I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some
> > > psychological flaw Rory. I give you credit for having good 
> > > reasons for believing the things that you do based on your 
> > > experiences and your conclusions. There is a way to disagree 
> > > with a person's POV without demonizing the person personally 
> > > as having a psychological flaw or denial patterns.  And a 
> > > smiley face at the end of a negative personal putdown doesn't 
> > > make it positive.
> > 
> > Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
> > are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the
> > thing that they're really angry about? 
> > 
> > They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
> > topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity 
> > fences" and the belief that building one can make 
> > you prosperous.
> > 
> > No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd
> > have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that
> > fences around an arbitrary property line generate 
> > beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that 
> > the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi
> > said so." So they attack instead.
> > 
> > Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
> > efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
> > and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
> > "Maharishi sez."
> > 
> > That's a good reason, if you believe that what 
> > Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is
> > cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when 
> > you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying
> > that you believe that things are true because Maharishi
> > said they are true, I think that conveys a different 
> > message than the one you think you're sending.
> >
> Dude, regarding my remarks, if I believed in SV fences I'd have one. 
> I don't. Nuf said. I am 100% certain Rory doesn't have one either.
> 
> PS Curtis if you can see what has been said in the context of 
> vasanas, it will begin to make sense to you. With all the epissed-
> timo-illogical talk, you obscure what is plainly there.:-)
> 
> :-)

But he can't make sense of it, can he Jimbo, since, as you keep reminding us in 
every post, 
you're enlightened and he's not. But you say you're not "attached" to the idea 
of 
enlightenment. That's good. But then you keep reminding us that you are.I 
mean what's 
a mother to do?   :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Vaj]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:05 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the
thing that they're really angry about?

They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity
fences" and the belief that building one can make
you prosperous.



Funny, they're actually making someone else prosperous. :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Vaj]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:43 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


And a smiley face at the end of a negative
personal putdown doesn't make it positive.


:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual 
> > > "vasanas" or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained 
> > > as to belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > > 
> > > It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection 
> > > of what is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight 
> > > lines," but their interior space appears to be automatically 
> > > curved into pre-set denial patterns, so that their thoughts 
> > > automatically "warp off" to either side to avoid perceiving 
> > > the self-evident Truth directly in front of them. :-)
> > 
> > My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness 
> > has nothing to do with emotions.
> > 
> > > it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> > > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to 
> > > belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > 
> > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to 
> > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding 
> > of epistemology.  
> > 
> > I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some
> > psychological flaw Rory. I give you credit for having good 
> > reasons for believing the things that you do based on your 
> > experiences and your conclusions. There is a way to disagree 
> > with a person's POV without demonizing the person personally 
> > as having a psychological flaw or denial patterns.  And a 
> > smiley face at the end of a negative personal putdown doesn't 
> > make it positive.
> 
> Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
> are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the
> thing that they're really angry about? 
> 
> They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
> topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity 
> fences" and the belief that building one can make 
> you prosperous.
> 
> No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd
> have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that
> fences around an arbitrary property line generate 
> beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that 
> the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi
> said so." So they attack instead.
> 
> Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
> efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
> and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
> "Maharishi sez."
> 
> That's a good reason, if you believe that what 
> Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is
> cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when 
> you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying
> that you believe that things are true because Maharishi
> said they are true, I think that conveys a different 
> message than the one you think you're sending.
>
Dude, regarding my remarks, if I believed in SV fences I'd have one. 
I don't. Nuf said. I am 100% certain Rory doesn't have one either.

PS Curtis if you can see what has been said in the context of 
vasanas, it will begin to make sense to you. With all the epissed-
timo-illogical talk, you obscure what is plainly there.:-)

:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual 
> > "vasanas" or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained 
> > as to belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> > 
> > It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection 
> > of what is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight 
> > lines," but their interior space appears to be automatically 
> > curved into pre-set denial patterns, so that their thoughts 
> > automatically "warp off" to either side to avoid perceiving 
> > the self-evident Truth directly in front of them. :-)
> 
> My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness 
> has nothing to do with emotions.
> 
> > it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> > or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to 
> > belie any possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> 
> This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to 
> perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding 
> of epistemology.  
> 
> I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some
> psychological flaw Rory. I give you credit for having good 
> reasons for believing the things that you do based on your 
> experiences and your conclusions. There is a way to disagree 
> with a person's POV without demonizing the person personally 
> as having a psychological flaw or denial patterns.  And a 
> smiley face at the end of a negative personal putdown doesn't 
> make it positive.

Have you also noticed that none of these folks who
are rushing to "pile on" has ever mentioned the
thing that they're really angry about? 

They're pursuing Judy's distraction because the real
topic that's pushed their buttons is SV "prosperity 
fences" and the belief that building one can make 
you prosperous.

No one wants to get into that. If they did they'd
have to come up with reasons *why* they believe that
fences around an arbitrary property line generate 
beneficial woo woo rays. And I think we all know that 
the answer to that question is, "Because Maharishi
said so." So they attack instead.

Is there anyone out there who *does* believe in the
efficacy of SV fences who has the balls to speak up 
and say *why* you believe that? Even if it's just, 
"Maharishi sez."

That's a good reason, if you believe that what 
Maharishi sez is true. In my book, saying that is
cool...you can believe whatever you want. But when 
you have to resort to ad hominem *rather* than saying
that you believe that things are true because Maharishi
said they are true, I think that conveys a different 
message than the one you think you're sending.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just think it's a neat story, one that has a 
> lot to say about some aspects of the reclusive 
> or monastic lifestyle. I've used it (and Hesse's 
> "Magister Ludi") for years in talks about the 
> potential pitfalls of the spiritual lifestyle. 

You have talked for *years* about the "potential pitfalls of the 
spiritual lifestyle"? Why bother? Physician, heal thyself.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

> I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie any 
> possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> 
> It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection of what 
> is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight lines," but 
> their interior space appears to be automatically curved into pre-set 
> denial patterns, so that their thoughts automatically "warp off" to 
> either side to avoid perceiving the self-evident Truth directly in 
> front of them. :-)

My disagreements with MMY's perspective on human consciousness has
nothing to do with emotions.

it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
> or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie any 
> possibility of integrity in those areas. 

This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument.  Claiming to perceive
"self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding of epistemology.  

I don't portray your perspective as being the result of some
psychological flaw Rory.  I give you credit for having good reasons
for believing the things that you do based on your experiences and
your conclusions.  There is a way to disagree with a person's POV
without demonizing the person personally as having a psychological
flaw or denial patterns.  And a smiley face at the end of a negative
personal putdown doesn't make it positive.
 



>

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > 
> > > > Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols
> > >
> > > Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
> > > the outside world.
> > 
> > I thought so. That was my instinctive take on it.
> > 
> > It's interesting to me that someone who rails on others for  
> > dishonesty of all sorts is actually the one who is consistently  
> > dishonest!
> > 
> > There's a principle in Islam where one is allowed to lie if it 
> > is to protect Islam. I think we see the same phenomenon in 
> > various systems of belief, where anything is fine if it is to 
> > protect the 'purity of the teaching', even if that means being 
> > dishonest in argumentation, intention and methods.
> 
> I can agree with this. I've seen it in dozens
> of spiritual groups.
>
I see it right here.:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > The amazing thing is that the nitwits like
> > Barry and Curtis and Vaj have yet to figure
> > out that they could do a *far* better, more
> > convincing job of discrediting MMY, the TMO,
> > TM, and TMers *if they were careful to make
> > only honest, well-thought out criticisms*.
> 
> I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the 
residual "vasanas" 
> or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie 
any 
> possibility of integrity in those areas. 
> 
> It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection of 
what 
> is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight lines," but 
> their interior space appears to be automatically curved into pre-
set 
> denial patterns, so that their thoughts automatically "warp off" 
to 
> either side to avoid perceiving the self-evident Truth directly in 
> front of them. :-)
>
I've noticed in my own evolution that it is the ego appending a sort 
of gravity to the vasanas that automatically curves the interior 
space to avoid them; that which is self-evident. As the view of my 
vasanas becomes more and more transparent, so does the lessening of 
this ego induced gravity, so that the view becomes straight into 
Truth, even if the residual habit is to avoid it. 

Kind of like when the good doctor Phil is examining some odd 
behavior in a guest, he frequently asks them, "How's that working 
for you?"-- why are you holding on to the illusion? What's the 
payoff in terms of your world view? So the curved lines are warping 
off not to avoid the existence of the vasanas, but the ego induced 
gravity that the vasanas are infused with. :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Rory Goff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The amazing thing is that the nitwits like
> Barry and Curtis and Vaj have yet to figure
> out that they could do a *far* better, more
> convincing job of discrediting MMY, the TMO,
> TM, and TMers *if they were careful to make
> only honest, well-thought out criticisms*.

I believe they honestly can't; it appears that the residual "vasanas" 
or areas of anger, resentment etc. are so ingrained as to belie any 
possibility of integrity in those areas. 

It is much like trying to show someone the obvious Perfection of what 
is: They believe they are thinking/seeing in "straight lines," but 
their interior space appears to be automatically curved into pre-set 
denial patterns, so that their thoughts automatically "warp off" to 
either side to avoid perceiving the self-evident Truth directly in 
front of them. :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

" The amazing thing is that the nitwits like
> Barry and Curtis and Vaj have yet to figure
> out that they could do a *far* better, more
> convincing job of discrediting MMY, the TMO,
> TM, and TMers *if they were careful to make
> only honest, well-thought out criticisms*."

This interested me.  Aside from my enjoyment from the word "nitwit"
which is such a funny word that even when it is applied to me I have
to admit enjoying reading it...

I am not sure that I have any such agenda of "discrediting" MMY and
TMO.  I used to have this agenda when I thought I had a perspective to
share about it years ago, and before there was so much stuff on the
net to guide people's choices about the full belief system of the
organization.  I'll have to think about this.  Here are some
definitions of discredit:
   
1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.
   2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.
   3. To refuse to believe.

Although I do not believe in MMY's perspective on consciousness I
don't think I have a current investment in damaging his reputation. 
He has managed to accomplish that himself.  I don't care if other
people believe it, they have the same facts I do, and have made their
choices. It is no different for me than not sharing the belief of
people who are into any version of religion I do not share. (or is
it?)  So many people have modified the movement beliefs into personal
eclectic philosophies combining teachings so there is hardly anyone
left with a straight TM view anyway these days.  

In any case me expressing my opinion that believing that Vastu fences
have a magical effect on any area of life is silly is just my personal
opinion.  The people into it don't care about my opinion and I don't
care that they don't share it.  I am not an advocate for taking them
down.  Perhaps they serve a psychological value that is good, I know
the limits of what I know about life. so my opinion expressed here is
more for the people who share my take on it rather than the people who
do believe in it.  I am not advocating that believers change their
minds if they enjoy their belief.  It is none of my business.

Here in Eden Center, the largest Vietnamese mall on the East coast,
each business has a special money Buddha alter that faces the door of
their business to increase their prosperity.  One friend had to super
glue the Buddha's butt down to avoid having a competing restaurant
steal it!  They take this pretty seriously.  I think the younger
generation views it as a custom without actual magical powers.  It is
charming to walk around and see them through the shop doors.

I am getting to the place where I can view movement customs with the
same detachment.  But I am not there yet. I still like to goof on the
movement's silliness but not the Vietnamese beliefs.  I'll have to
give this more thought.  It is an inconsistent standard. 

Now if I was talking to a movement person who was telling me about
their great effects from their Vastu home I would just enjoy hearing
something I consider odd and would not feel compelled to be an ass
about it.  Unless it was accompanied by a claim that somehow the
person was more sensitive to the effects due to their "higher
consciousness" which is a form of spiritual oneupmanship I would react
to.  My tolerance ends there.  

I can find a person from another culture charming describing their
beliefs, but can be annoyed by a New Ager spouting spiritual
proclamations. I must be making some type of sincerity judgment but it
may or may not be valid.  

I do enjoy articulating where I draw my own belief lines here secure
in the knowledge that people here know their own minds.  On a TM
believer's board I would not be candid with my skepticism. It would
seem purposelessly rude.  No one is going to change their mind about
something unless they want to no matter what I write.

So I don't think "discrediting" MMY's teaching is a goal for me.  The
fact that I enjoy writing about my own perspective is for my own
pleasure and for those who share my take on it.  Believing that my
words have any effect on believers would make me a nitwit.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
> > > (and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
> > > also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty...
> > 
> > I think that you underestimate us and how
> > nefarious we are, Judy. 
> > 
> > "*Nothing but* gross intellectual dishonesty"
> > indeed! Where is your sense of *imagination*,
> > girl?
> > 
> > Couldn't it *also* be part of a concerted 
> > attempt to discredit Maharishi and TM and
> > the TM movement, probably funded by the CIA?
> 
> The amazing thing is that the nitwits like
> Barry and Curtis and Vaj have yet to figure
> out that they could do a *far* better, more
> convincing job 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
> > (and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
> > also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty...
> 
> I think that you underestimate us and how
> nefarious we are, Judy. 
> 
> "*Nothing but* gross intellectual dishonesty"
> indeed! Where is your sense of *imagination*,
> girl?
> 
> Couldn't it *also* be part of a concerted 
> attempt to discredit Maharishi and TM and
> the TM movement, probably funded by the CIA?
> 
> Couldn't we all be dumping on the fences 
> because they have foiled our plans to rob
> the fair citizens of Vedic City?
> 
> Or, couldn't we be "chiming in" after one of
> your putdown posts as part of a bet to see
> how quickly you will "foul out" on posts 
> *this* week? 
> 
> If that were true, my money would be on "before 
> midnight Monday CST," and I think I'd have a 
> good chance of winning. Only nine chances left
> to post a putdown this week, Jude. (After 19 
> such putdowns so far.) Do you think you can 
> avoid using them all up today?

21 and counting

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[nablusoss1008]

> > Why is it so difficult for you and Barry and
> > Vaj to simply say, "Oops, I goofed" when you've
> > been caught in a mistake?
> >
> They are just like Maharishi, they don't make mistakes. LOL:-0

Hey man; does the Tornados make mistakes ? :-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
> > (and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
> > also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty...
> 
> I think that you underestimate us and how
> nefarious we are, Judy. 
> 
> "*Nothing but* gross intellectual dishonesty"
> indeed! Where is your sense of *imagination*,
> girl?
> 
> Couldn't it *also* be part of a concerted 
> attempt to discredit Maharishi and TM and
> the TM movement, probably funded by the CIA?

The amazing thing is that the nitwits like
Barry and Curtis and Vaj have yet to figure
out that they could do a *far* better, more
convincing job of discrediting MMY, the TMO,
TM, and TMers *if they were careful to make
only honest, well-thought out criticisms*.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > > Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols
> >
> > Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
> > the outside world.
> 
> I thought so. That was my instinctive take on it.

But your take was wrong, and Barry isn't telling the truth.

> It's interesting to me that someone who rails on others for  
> dishonesty of all sorts is actually the one who is consistently  
> dishonest!

Interesting, but not true, if you're referring to me.
In fact, it's you who is lying.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[geezerfreak]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:11 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > 
> > > No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
> > > lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
> > > question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
> > > into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
> > > to me.
> > >
> > > The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
> > > you know if you read my posts) is only one
> > > consideration. That they have openings in front
> > > but no gates to close them off is another; but
> > > the most important is that they're no different
> > > (except for being *more* open) than the fences
> > > most non-SUV houses have around them.
> > >
> > > In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
> > > close themselves off from the rest of the world
> > > via the fences around their houses (complete
> > > with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
> > > just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
> > > he never looked at the photos of the houses in
> > > question.
> > >
> > > It was intellectually dishonest for him to
> > > pretend that his comments still had merit--
> > > and to attack me for pointing out that they
> > > didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
> > > you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).
> > 
> > Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols
> 
> Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
> the outside world.
> 
> Not to *mention* the fences' ability to generate
> woo woo rays that make you prosperous.  
> 
> :-)
Ahhh, another day at FFL. There's Judith accusing Barry and anyone else who 
doesn't see it 
her way of being a liar. It's as predictable as the sun coming up.

A few days ago, someone suggested that Anne Coulter's photo be shown under the 
"c" 
word listing in Wilkepedia. I've no problem with that, but surely Judith should 
join her in 
the listing.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:
> 
> > > Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols
> >
> > Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
> > the outside world.
> 
> I thought so. That was my instinctive take on it.
> 
> It's interesting to me that someone who rails on others for  
> dishonesty of all sorts is actually the one who is consistently  
> dishonest!
> 
> There's a principle in Islam where one is allowed to lie if it 
> is to protect Islam. I think we see the same phenomenon in 
> various systems of belief, where anything is fine if it is to 
> protect the 'purity of the teaching', even if that means being 
> dishonest in argumentation, intention and methods.

I can agree with this. I've seen it in dozens
of spiritual groups.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
> (and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
> also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty...

I think that you underestimate us and how
nefarious we are, Judy. 

"*Nothing but* gross intellectual dishonesty"
indeed! Where is your sense of *imagination*,
girl?

Couldn't it *also* be part of a concerted 
attempt to discredit Maharishi and TM and
the TM movement, probably funded by the CIA?

Couldn't we all be dumping on the fences 
because they have foiled our plans to rob
the fair citizens of Vedic City?

Or, couldn't we be "chiming in" after one of
your putdown posts as part of a bet to see
how quickly you will "foul out" on posts 
*this* week? 

If that were true, my money would be on "before 
midnight Monday CST," and I think I'd have a 
good chance of winning. Only nine chances left
to post a putdown this week, Jude. (After 19 
such putdowns so far.) Do you think you can 
avoid using them all up today? 

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Peter]

Barry, you are such a douche bag! Nine out of ten
doctors agree. ;-)

--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly. It's a "prosperity fence." Building one,
> even
> > if it's a two-foot-high symbolic fence, around
> your 
> > property will make you more prosperous.
> 
> No, sorry, this is just a lame attempt to justify
> the mistake you made.
> 
> From your quote:
> 
> "This was an extensive and magnificent structure,
> the
> creation of the prince's own eccentric yet august
> taste.
> A strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had
> gates of iron. The courtiers, having entered,
> brought
> furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts.
> They
> resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress
> to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from
> within."
> 
> And your comment in your first reply:
> 
> "I posted the quote because of the parallels to
> the mentality of people who deal with the problems
> of the world by hiding in their houses -- however
> high the fences around them, or whether there even
> *are* fences. The mentality of hiding from the
> world to ensure one's own 'prosperity' is what I
> had in mind."
> 
> Your theme obviously concerned the "mindset" that
> purportedly leads TMers to shut themselves up in
> their houses and hide from the world. It was not,
> initially, about "magic." The quote had nothing
> to do with "magic."
> 
> I asked you to explain why you thought the TMers
> were "hiding from the world" in these houses or
> their neighborhoods, any more than anybody else
> does, and you were unable to do so.
> 
> 
> > And Judy's hung up on how high the fences are.  
> 
> Nope, that would be *your* hangup. What's
> important is whether the fences were designed
> to put up a barrier between those who live in
> the houses and the rest of the world.
> 
> Nor, of course, does your attack on me for not
> reading "Masque of the Red Death" have any merit;
> it's just an attempt at distraction. (I have read
> it, years ago, but that's just as irrelevant as
> your attack.)
> 
> The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
> (and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
> also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty in
> a deeply pathetic attempt to avoid having to say,
> "Oops, I made a mistake."
> 
> The reason the mistake is so embarrassing that you
> have to compuslively go through all this nonsense
> to pretend you didn't make it is that it reveals
> how *twisted* your thinking is about everything
> TM-ish.
> 
> It would be one thing to make fun of SUV-dwellers
> for thinking the design of their homes will
> improve their prosperity; that would be perfectly
> legitimate. But you can't *stop* at that; you have
> to pretend that belief is a symptom of raging
> paranoia that leads TMers to "hide from the world"
> and wall themselves off.
> 
> But you made that up; it's a function of *your*
> raging paranoia. On some level, you realize that,
> or you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to
> try to disguise what you were thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!' 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 



  

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Vaj]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:32 PM, TurquoiseB wrote:


> Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols

Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
the outside world.



I thought so. That was my instinctive take on it.

It's interesting to me that someone who rails on others for  
dishonesty of all sorts is actually the one who is consistently  
dishonest!


There's a principle in Islam where one is allowed to lie if it is to  
protect Islam. I think we see the same phenomenon in various systems  
of belief, where anything is fine if it is to protect the 'purity of  
the teaching', even if that means being dishonest in argumentation,  
intention and methods. 

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:11 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
> > lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
> > question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
> > into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
> > to me.
> >
> > The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
> > you know if you read my posts) is only one
> > consideration. That they have openings in front
> > but no gates to close them off is another; but
> > the most important is that they're no different
> > (except for being *more* open) than the fences
> > most non-SUV houses have around them.
> >
> > In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
> > close themselves off from the rest of the world
> > via the fences around their houses (complete
> > with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
> > just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
> > he never looked at the photos of the houses in
> > question.
> >
> > It was intellectually dishonest for him to
> > pretend that his comments still had merit--
> > and to attack me for pointing out that they
> > didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
> > you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).
> 
> Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols

"This was an extensive and magnificent structure, the
creation of the prince's own eccentric yet august taste.
A strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had
gates of iron. The courtiers, having entered, brought
furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They
resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress
to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from
within."

Nope, nothing to do with fences as symbols here, sorry.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Exactly. It's a "prosperity fence." Building one, even
> if it's a two-foot-high symbolic fence, around your 
> property will make you more prosperous.

No, sorry, this is just a lame attempt to justify
the mistake you made.

>From your quote:

"This was an extensive and magnificent structure, the
creation of the prince's own eccentric yet august taste.
A strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had
gates of iron. The courtiers, having entered, brought
furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They
resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress
to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from
within."

And your comment in your first reply:

"I posted the quote because of the parallels to
the mentality of people who deal with the problems
of the world by hiding in their houses -- however
high the fences around them, or whether there even
*are* fences. The mentality of hiding from the
world to ensure one's own 'prosperity' is what I
had in mind."

Your theme obviously concerned the "mindset" that
purportedly leads TMers to shut themselves up in
their houses and hide from the world. It was not,
initially, about "magic." The quote had nothing
to do with "magic."

I asked you to explain why you thought the TMers
were "hiding from the world" in these houses or
their neighborhoods, any more than anybody else
does, and you were unable to do so.


> And Judy's hung up on how high the fences are.  

Nope, that would be *your* hangup. What's
important is whether the fences were designed
to put up a barrier between those who live in
the houses and the rest of the world.

Nor, of course, does your attack on me for not
reading "Masque of the Red Death" have any merit;
it's just an attempt at distraction. (I have read
it, years ago, but that's just as irrelevant as
your attack.)

The entire rest of your post, and that of Curtis
(and no doubt that of Vaj when he chimes in), is
also nothing but gross intellectual dishonesty in
a deeply pathetic attempt to avoid having to say,
"Oops, I made a mistake."

The reason the mistake is so embarrassing that you
have to compuslively go through all this nonsense
to pretend you didn't make it is that it reveals
how *twisted* your thinking is about everything
TM-ish.

It would be one thing to make fun of SUV-dwellers
for thinking the design of their homes will
improve their prosperity; that would be perfectly
legitimate. But you can't *stop* at that; you have
to pretend that belief is a symptom of raging
paranoia that leads TMers to "hide from the world"
and wall themselves off.

But you made that up; it's a function of *your*
raging paranoia. On some level, you realize that,
or you wouldn't have to go to such lengths to
try to disguise what you were thinking.

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Vaj wrote:


Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols


What's the deal with the no grass-seed? What could be very nice-looking 
homes surrounded by neat white picket fences look pretty ridiculous 
with hay thrown down all around them.


Sal

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:11 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
> > lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
> > question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
> > into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
> > to me.
> >
> > The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
> > you know if you read my posts) is only one
> > consideration. That they have openings in front
> > but no gates to close them off is another; but
> > the most important is that they're no different
> > (except for being *more* open) than the fences
> > most non-SUV houses have around them.
> >
> > In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
> > close themselves off from the rest of the world
> > via the fences around their houses (complete
> > with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
> > just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
> > he never looked at the photos of the houses in
> > question.
> >
> > It was intellectually dishonest for him to
> > pretend that his comments still had merit--
> > and to attack me for pointing out that they
> > didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
> > you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).
> 
> Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols

Exactly. As symbols for separating oneself from
the outside world.

Not to *mention* the fences' ability to generate
woo woo rays that make you prosperous.  

:-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[Vaj]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:11 PM, authfriend wrote:


No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
to me.

The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
you know if you read my posts) is only one
consideration. That they have openings in front
but no gates to close them off is another; but
the most important is that they're no different
(except for being *more* open) than the fences
most non-SUV houses have around them.

In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
close themselves off from the rest of the world
via the fences around their houses (complete
with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
he never looked at the photos of the houses in
question.

It was intellectually dishonest for him to
pretend that his comments still had merit--
and to attack me for pointing out that they
didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).


Unless of course he was talking of fences as symbols

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency
> > to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And
> > was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom
> > onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about
> > it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub-
> > stance of the discussion? I think she denied that
> > as well.
> > 
> > For Judy, the only important thing in this thread 
> > is how high the fences are.
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> Turq,
> 
> You are getting perilously close to the dreaded "intellectually
> dishonest" label.  Here is how it works.  Once a tangential point is
> chosen and evidence is provided, if you fail to adjust your own
> perspective, actually staying with your own point, you are being
> intellectually dishonest.  

Busted.  :-)

I had actually believed that I posted the Poe quote
because the mention of "prosperity fences" called 
into question for me the whole idea of fences being 
*able* to affect one's prosperity. And then, while
still chuckling about that, I mentally sequed from
'prosperity' to 'Prospero,' and remembered Poe's 
story. So I posted a quote from the story, without 
comment of any kind.

Little did I know that what I *really* had in mind
was a discussion of the height of fences (not to 
mention an intent that is covered in more detail
below), and that that how high the fences are was
the most important point of the discussion.

:-)

> An example of this would be choosing the
> part of the wikipedia description of intellectually dishonesty that
> describes how she uses it.  Once it is framed as an attempt "to
> pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry"
> (totally manufactured out of the air) then the label becomes a self
> fulfilling prophesy. 
> 
> It is a fascinating study in mindfuckery, all the more interesting
> because she seems to be completely  oblivious to how it interferes
> with understanding another person's point of view.  

I honestly believe that the mindfuckery is so complete
that she may not be *aware* that she does this on a 
regular basis. I've never encountered anyone in any
context who is as devoid of the ability to self-examine
as Judy Stein. She just dashes off a putdown, because
she tends to react to almost any idea that challenges
her world view or her beliefs with the *need* to reply
with a putdown. Then, later, when someone points out
that the putdown was based on total projection on her
part, she defends her original statements to the death. 
It's like watching a warped perversion of Advaita: 
"It *must* have been right, because *I* said it."  

Judy never has to reconsider anything because it was
always right the first time. She *can't* have possibly
read anything *into* the posts she's responding angrily
to and to the poster's intent; she merely sees them 
"accurately." 

Uh huh. Remember how this particular set of putdowns 
started? I posted the quote from the Poe story. Judy 
had obviously never read the story (and my bet is that 
she *still* hasn't read it) and knew nothing about it, 
but she somehow "saw" in the post an attempt on my part
to be "devastating" (her word). 

I posted the quote *without comment*. 

:-)

> Only a few techniques are needed as long as they are relentlessly 
> applied. This may be why I can never anticipate her reaction to 
> what I write.  The reaction is a content free process rather than 
> a personal POV.

Interesting point. Now that you mention it, that's true.
The only thing I can count on in Judy's responses to
what I post -- *whatever* I post -- is that it will be
critical of me, and that it will have nothing to do with
what I might have been thinking when I wrote the post,
*if* it has anything to do with the post, period. (Often
it doesn't; it's her using the post as an excuse to 
bring up some old grudge from ten years ago.)

"Content free process" just nails it. Well done.

> The fence's effect is magical, Stapatya Veda mojo. 

*THAT* was the point. Thank you for getting it.

> The height is irrelevant to their magical effect.  

Exactly. It's a "prosperity fence." Building one, even
if it's a two-foot-high symbolic fence, around your 
property will make you more prosperous.

> Rather then just claim that they have an aesthetic value, which 
> is good enough for most people, and is probably valid from the 
> homes I have seen, it has a magical effect on the people inside 
> and that magic radiates out to the rest of the world. The fences 
> are a perfect metaphor for the prison of specialness they 
> represent.

Exactly. Woo woo rays. From a fence. 

And Judy's hung up on how high the fences are.  

:-)

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  
wrote:
> > >
> > > Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency
> > > to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And
> > > was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom
> > > onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about
> > > it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub-
> > > stance of the discussion? I think she denied that
> > > as well.
> > > 
> > > For Judy, the only important thing in this thread 
> > > is how high the fences are.
> > > 
> > > :-)
> > 
> > Turq,
> > 
> > You are getting perilously close to the dreaded "intellectually
> > dishonest" label.
> 
> No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
> lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
> question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
> into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
> to me.
> 
> The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
> you know if you read my posts) is only one
> consideration. That they have openings in front
> but no gates to close them off is another; but
> the most important is that they're no different
> (except for being *more* open) than the fences
> most non-SUV houses have around them.
> 
> In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
> close themselves off from the rest of the world
> via the fences around their houses (complete
> with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
> just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
> he never looked at the photos of the houses in
> question.
> 
> It was intellectually dishonest for him to
> pretend that his comments still had merit--
> and to attack me for pointing out that they
> didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
> you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).
> 
> Why is it so difficult for you and Barry and
> Vaj to simply say, "Oops, I goofed" when you've
> been caught in a mistake?
>
They are just like Maharishi, they don't make mistakes. LOL:-0

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency
> > to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And
> > was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom
> > onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about
> > it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub-
> > stance of the discussion? I think she denied that
> > as well.
> > 
> > For Judy, the only important thing in this thread 
> > is how high the fences are.
> > 
> > :-)
> 
> Turq,
> 
> You are getting perilously close to the dreaded "intellectually
> dishonest" label.

No, actually he's gone way over it into actually
lying (and so have you, if you read the posts in
question). In fact, Barry was already heavily
into intellectual dishonesty in his first reply
to me.

The height of the fences, as Barry knows (and as
you know if you read my posts) is only one
consideration. That they have openings in front
but no gates to close them off is another; but
the most important is that they're no different
(except for being *more* open) than the fences
most non-SUV houses have around them.

In other words, Barry's rant about how TMers
close themselves off from the rest of the world
via the fences around their houses (complete
with quote from "Masque of the Red Death") was
just a stupid blooper that Barry made because
he never looked at the photos of the houses in
question.

It was intellectually dishonest for him to
pretend that his comments still had merit--
and to attack me for pointing out that they
didn't. And it's intellectually dishonest for
you to attempt to defend him (and attack me).

Why is it so difficult for you and Barry and
Vaj to simply say, "Oops, I goofed" when you've
been caught in a mistake?

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency
> to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And
> was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom
> onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about
> it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub-
> stance of the discussion? I think she denied that
> as well.
> 
> For Judy, the only important thing in this thread 
> is how high the fences are.
> 
> :-)


Turq,

You are getting perilously close to the dreaded "intellectually
dishonest" label.  Here is how it works.  Once a tangential point is
chosen and evidence is provided, if you fail to adjust your own
perspective, actually staying with your own point, you are being
intellectually dishonest.  An example of this would be choosing the
part of the wikipedia description of intellectually dishonesty that
describes how she uses it.  Once it is framed as an attempt "to
pretend this paragraph was the substance of the Wikipedia entry"
(totally manufactured out of the air) then the label becomes a self
fulfilling prophesy. 

It is a fascinating study in mindfuckery, all the more interesting
because she seems to be completely  oblivious to how it interferes
with understanding another person's point of view.  Only a few
techniques are needed as long as they are relentlessly applied. This
may be why I can never anticipate her reaction to what I write.  The
reaction is a content free process rather than a personal POV.

The fence's effect is magical, Stapatya Veda mojo.  The height is
irrelevant to their magical effect.  Rather then just claim that they
have an aesthetic value, which is good enough for most people, and is
probably valid from the homes I have seen, it has a magical effect on
the people inside and that magic radiates out to the rest of the
world.  The fences are a perfect metaphor for the prison of
specialness they represent.

BTW this is not a comment on Alex's house which looked very cool from
the pictures.  I have no idea how he thinks about the value of Vastu
other than its interesting cool design.  I'm sure there at as many
different relationships with the concepts of Vastu as with TM itself.








> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > > Others may read the story and see no parallels
> > > whatsoever to spiritual communities that seem
> > > to close themselves off from the world. I do.
> > > Call me an old populist, but in my book building
> > > fences between yourself and the world -- no matter
> > > what the supposedly laudable reasons for doing
> > > so may be -- is still building fences between
> > > yourself and the world.
> > 
> > Ooh, Barry still doesn't get it. As both I and
> > Alex have pointed out, the SUV fences are 
> > obviously not designed to close the world out.
> > 
> > In fact, the fences around most non-SUV homes
> > are more protective than these are; they usually
> > have a gate at the front (and are frequently
> > higher and less easily penetrated).
> > 
> > Fences around homes generally are very common
> > in the West. They're by no means unique to SUV
> > or even to spiritual communities.
> > 
> > You may not like fences on general principles,
> > and that's OK, but it's really, *really* silly
> > to make believe your distaste has any special
> > relevance to SUV/spiritual communities.
>

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

Was it Vaj recently who commented on Judy's tendency
to obfuscate? And Judy who denied she does it? And
was it Curtis who commented on her tendency to glom
onto some unimportant word or phrase and argue about
it endlessly in an attempt to derail the real sub-
stance of the discussion? I think she denied that
as well.

For Judy, the only important thing in this thread 
is how high the fences are.

:-)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> > Others may read the story and see no parallels
> > whatsoever to spiritual communities that seem
> > to close themselves off from the world. I do.
> > Call me an old populist, but in my book building
> > fences between yourself and the world -- no matter
> > what the supposedly laudable reasons for doing
> > so may be -- is still building fences between
> > yourself and the world.
> 
> Ooh, Barry still doesn't get it. As both I and
> Alex have pointed out, the SUV fences are 
> obviously not designed to close the world out.
> 
> In fact, the fences around most non-SUV homes
> are more protective than these are; they usually
> have a gate at the front (and are frequently
> higher and less easily penetrated).
> 
> Fences around homes generally are very common
> in the West. They're by no means unique to SUV
> or even to spiritual communities.
> 
> You may not like fences on general principles,
> and that's OK, but it's really, *really* silly
> to make believe your distaste has any special
> relevance to SUV/spiritual communities.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Others may read the story and see no parallels
> whatsoever to spiritual communities that seem
> to close themselves off from the world. I do.
> Call me an old populist, but in my book building
> fences between yourself and the world -- no matter
> what the supposedly laudable reasons for doing
> so may be -- is still building fences between
> yourself and the world.

Ooh, Barry still doesn't get it. As both I and
Alex have pointed out, the SUV fences are 
obviously not designed to close the world out.

In fact, the fences around most non-SUV homes
are more protective than these are; they usually
have a gate at the front (and are frequently
higher and less easily penetrated).

Fences around homes generally are very common
in the West. They're by no means unique to SUV
or even to spiritual communities.

You may not like fences on general principles,
and that's OK, but it's really, *really* silly
to make believe your distaste has any special
relevance to SUV/spiritual communities.

[FairfieldLife] The Masque of the Red Death (was Re: S-land ru news)

[TurquoiseB]

It was the reference to "prosperity fences" with
regard to the SV houses that first reminded me of 
Poe's story and its Prince Prospero. But interest-
ingly enough, it seems that there may even be a 
SV-like reference in Poe's story itself (from 
an Internet study guide):

Poe may have drawn upon the works of Giovanni Boccaccio 
(1313-1375) and William Shakespeare (1564-1616) for 
inspiration in writing "The Masque of the Red Death." 
Specifically, Poe appears to have imitated the frame-
tale in Boccaccio's masterpiece, The Decameron, and 
borrowed elements from at least one Shakespeare play, 
The Tempest, and possibly another, As You Like It. In 
The Decameron, seven men and three women withdraw to 
the countryside to escape a plague outbreak in Florence. 
To bide their time, they tell stories, sing, and dance. 
In The Tempest, the main character is Prospero, ruler 
of a magical island. One of his subjects, a beast-like 
man named Caliban, curses Prospero, saying he hopes he 
dies of "red plague." In As You Like It, the character 
Jaques (spelled without a c) recites a speech describing 
"the seven ages of man"–that is, the stages of life from 
infancy to old age. It has been suggested that the seven 
rooms in Poe's story represent the seven stages of life 
outlined by Shakespeare. The first room would represent 
infancy, and fittingly Poe locates it in the easternmost 
part of the imperial suite. (The east is a primordial 
archetype associated with the rising sun and birth.) 
The last room, the seventh, would represent old age 
and death, and Poe locates it in the westernmost part 
of the imperial suite. (The west is a primordial arche-
type associated with the setting sun, old age, and death.)

I just think it's a neat story, one that has a 
lot to say about some aspects of the reclusive 
or monastic lifestyle. I've used it (and Hesse's 
"Magister Ludi") for years in talks about the 
potential pitfalls of the spiritual lifestyle. 

Others may read the story and see no parallels
whatsoever to spiritual communities that seem
to close themselves off from the world. I do.
Call me an old populist, but in my book building
fences between yourself and the world -- no matter
what the supposedly laudable reasons for doing
so may be -- is still building fences between
yourself and the world. Those folks' call, of 
course, but being an old populist, I'm of the 
view that the world has much to teach. To those 
who feel that they have still might have things 
to learn, that is. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In skimming the newsletter, I saw reference to 
> > > > the fences around the "fortune-creating" 
> > > > homes. The vastuu fences reminded me of 
> > > > something in a book I just finished, *The Ladies' 
> > > > No. 1 Detective Agency." Apparently, in Botswana, 
> > > > it's customary for a home to have a knee-high 
> > > > fence around it. When visitors approach the home, 
> > > > they stop at the fence and hail the inhabitants, 
> > > > rather than walk up to the door and knock. I 
> > > > detected a similarity between this African fencing
> > > > custom and the vastuu fences of Sthapatya-vedic homes.
> > > 
> > > ...the Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and 
> > > sagacious. When his dominions were half depopulated, 
> > > he summoned to his presence a thousand hale and light-
> > > hearted friends from among the knights and dames of 
> > > his court, and with these retired to the deep 
> > > seclusion of one of his castellated abbeys. This was 
> > > an extensive and magnificent structure, the creation 
> > > of the prince's own eccentric yet august taste. A 
> > > strong and lofty wall girdled it in. This wall had 
> > > gates of iron. The courtiers, having entered, brought 
> > > furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. They 
> > > resolved to leave means neither of ingress or egress 
> > > to the sudden impulses of despair or of frenzy from 
> > > within. The abbey was amply provisioned. With such 
> > > precautions the courtiers might bid defiance to 
> > > contagion. The external world could take care of 
> > > itself. In the meantime it was folly to grieve, or 
> > > to think. The prince had provided all the appliances 
> > > of pleasure. There were buffoons, there were 
> > > improvisatori, there were ballet-dancers, there 
> > > were musicians, there was Beauty, there was wine. 
> > > All these and security were within. Without was 
> > > the "Red Death."
> > > 
> > > -- from "The Masque of the Red Death," by Edgar Allen Poe
> > 
> > Gosh, that would be devastating, Barry, if
> > it weren't for the fact that the fences in
> > question are either picket fences about three
> > feet high, or posts spaced at intervals with
> >