[FairfieldLife] "There is no God"

[yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

4 min lecture by OSHO: "There is no God"
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31WdaBusl2Q
 

 Jai Sakyamuni Buddha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Throne of God experience

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 “If the Batgap people are so great, I hereby challenge ANY of them to..” 
 Some real Enlightened on Batgap are not necessarily just going to come with 
flash and carnival tricks to sell you. 

 

 In the old days some meditators were challenging Walter Koch asking if he was 
Enlightened. He responded telling them that if you want a million dollars and 
you have $600,000 why quibble. (1969 dollars..)
 

 Different awakened evidently have different modalities that they can be 
dextrous with. A Batgap’er example very like George Fox in that way is David 
Spero. If one would want to get a contemporary idea of what George Fox would 
have been like in his time go sit with David Spero sometime now.   
 

 It is said that the great sage George Fox in his time would heal people who 
came to him but then stopped with that as that became a sideshow distraction to 
his larger teaching/work of bringing people on to the inner (transcendent) 
light (shakti) that is in everyone. It was not some philosophy or what he was 
saying to people but his way then was by direct transformational transmission 
of shakti giving people visceral experience of state with it in their own 
body-heart-mind complex.  



 

 

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

 The "Throne of God" is an expression representing the Judaeo-Christian Deity 
YHVH, but also may include visions by Christians of the Throne of YHVH and 
Jesus. (it's a package deal apparently).
 Most of the Batgap people seem to believe they have reached a certain level 
(if we can use that word since Consciousness isn't a "level") of 
accomplishment, sufficiently notable and worthy of an appearance in Youtube 
accompanied by the sale of books describing their "accomplishment":.
 But I dont' see the point in going around saying "I'm Awakened" and then not 
showing much in the way of demonstrable Siddhis.  Few of the Batgap people can 
even come close to Master John Douglass in terms of psychic abilities.
 If the Batgap people are so great, I hereby challenge ANY of them to describe 
a "Throne of God" experience in which they leave their physical bodies and 
travel to the Judaeo-Christian realm, and then seeing right beform them, the 
Radiant Form of YAHWEH, (YHVH).
 The original source for the Throne of God experinces, is the prototypical 
description by Ezekiel, but the Midieval Kaballists also held the Throne of God 
experience in high esteem.
 Let's see if any of the Batgappers can describe having had such an experience.
 
https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+the+throne+of+god=isch=G7nATxx9XDyatM%253A%253BpeEsSiMKjEIn4M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253D8WXzVmuO5QM=iu=m=G7nATxx9XDyatM%253A%252CpeEsSiMKjEIn4M%252C_=__KVxrD_kRyjcdNtZO8JNfehTfvlw%3D=1920=935=0ahUKEwikweGegYDVAhVYwGMKHedrCNcQyjcIOw=sSBkWeSkDtiAjwPn16G4DQ#imgrc=G7nATxx9XDyatM:=1499734200791
 
https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+the+throne+of+god=isch=G7nATxx9XDyatM%253A%253BpeEsSiMKjEIn4M%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253D8WXzVmuO5QM=iu=m=G7nATxx9XDyatM%253A%252CpeEsSiMKjEIn4M%252C_=__KVxrD_kRyjcdNtZO8JNfehTfvlw%3D=1920=935=0ahUKEwikweGegYDVAhVYwGMKHedrCNcQyjcIOw=sSBkWeSkDtiAjwPn16G4DQ#imgrc=G7nATxx9XDyatM:=1499734200791
 

[FairfieldLife] Trump chosen by God??

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Trump Chosen by God To Stop America's Destruction - Astounding 2011 Prophecy 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqwFWD_Htfo

 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqwFWD_Htfo 
 
 Trump Chosen by God To Stop America's Destruction -... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqwFWD_Htfo Rick Wiles interviews retired The 
Lord has chosen Mr. Trump to bring America back from the brink of destruction. 
Here's Mark Taylors Web site where you can r...
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqwFWD_Htfo 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Hillary, gimmel, dalet (god, gad) :D

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

 https://youtu.be/ptaDx3678FU?t=35s https://youtu.be/ptaDx3678FU?t=35s

 

[FairfieldLife] Classic Experience of God Consciousness as discribed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in his Seven States of Consciuosness talk

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Too bad they didn't understand it. Does any of the other stuff sound 
familiar?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y8cPUZs_ZA

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Austrailian finds Jesus After 28 Years of Searching for God via Hinduism
 See how a man found Jesus after studying Hinduism for 28 years, including a 
trip to India to increase his medita...  |   |

  |

  |

 

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Austrailian finds Jesus After 28 Years of Searching for God via Hinduism
 See how a man found Jesus after studying Hinduism for 28 years, including a 
trip to India to increase his medita...  |   |

  |

  |

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

H."Am I sure?"  Pretty sure...but a good question to ask, yes? 

 Here's something funny.  The day before you posted the reply that includes the 
sentence below, I read the following sentence and said to myself, "I must look 
up this word "noumenal."  (Yes, I'd say I'm a beginner in a lot of ways today.) 

 

 "Looking deeply into the phenomenological world, we touch the true nature, the 
noumenal world."
 

 "And all phenomena are manifestations of the noumenon (a thing as it is in 
itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through 
phenomenal attributes). So ultimately "the real thing" transcends phenomena. 
~s3raphita
 

 Things like that happen all the time here for me.  I'll ask a question 
silently and suddenly a topic will address it somehow.  I don't really believe 
it, so I just keep testing!  Ha.  
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Re "The Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy that 
would allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist": 

 Intriguing suggestion. Never thought of that. You sure you're a novice?
 

 

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

 These Crash Courses are good at instructing the ignorant masses.   

 At about 8:15 in, he states that Aquinas takes it as a given that everything 
must have a cause other than itself, and that therefore, his argument of God as 
"first cause" is self-defeating because why wouldn't "God" have to abide by the 
same "rules."  I thought that was one of the deals with theism - no "God" 
doesn't abide by the same "rules" as his creation.  
 

 I don't try to talk intelligently about any of this because I'm such a novice, 
but just read the Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy 
that would allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist, in theory.  
 

 Seems to get down to the age-old discussion of dualistic vs non-dualistic 
view/approach.   
 


 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 








 
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Re "The Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy that would 
allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist": 

 Intriguing suggestion. Never thought of that. You sure you're a novice?
 

 

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

 These Crash Courses are good at instructing the ignorant masses.   

 At about 8:15 in, he states that Aquinas takes it as a given that everything 
must have a cause other than itself, and that therefore, his argument of God as 
"first cause" is self-defeating because why wouldn't "God" have to abide by the 
same "rules."  I thought that was one of the deals with theism - no "God" 
doesn't abide by the same "rules" as his creation.  
 

 I don't try to talk intelligently about any of this because I'm such a novice, 
but just read the Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy 
that would allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist, in theory.  
 

 Seems to get down to the age-old discussion of dualistic vs non-dualistic 
view/approach.   
 


 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Impossible God

[s3raph...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I enjoyed that.  

 I particularly liked: "Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him." 
That's the kind of paradoxical language that drives these new atheists up the 
wall. Is it gobbledygook? In a way it is. But it's gobbledygook at a higher, 
more suggestive level than the common-or-garden variety of gibberish*.  
 I've never read Tillich but probably shall one day.
 
 And the "patheos" site looks like it contains some stimulating articles. 
Thanks for the link.

 

 

 *gibberish = from the name of an 8th-century Islamic alchemist, Jābir ibn 
Hayyān, whose name was Latinized as "Geber."

 

 

 




  
 

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

 This mainstream Christian blogger takes a swipe at Paul Tillich's "Ground of 
Being", saying that it (Being-IIn-Itself" can't be BOTH Immanent AND 
Transcendent.
 

 Actually, It can if we are to believe MMY and to the extent of our own 
experiences with TM.  The fact that it doesn't "seem" possible doesn't make it 
impossible.  Of course, Shankara would have a lot to say on the subject of 
Advaitic Monism.
 

 When the blogger says we can have both Immanence and Transcendence at the same 
time, he simply has revealed a genuine Paradox (of which there are many in 
logic).
 

 

 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/12/the-impossible-god-of-paul-tillich/
 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/12/the-impossible-god-of-paul-tillich/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Judy,
 

 I personally liked to use the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (KCA) when 
discussing this topic.  I enjoyed debating this topic with our former members, 
like Curtis and Xeno.  But they seemed to skip a thought in making their 
position, or gloss over a counter point,  which convinced me that arguing with 
them was pointless.

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

 Be aware that "first cause" in Aquinas's thinking doesn't mean *temporal* 
first cause but *ontological* first cause. 

 

 

 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Emily, 

 When the so-called atheists, like Xeno and Curtis, were members here in this 
forum, I used the Kalaam Cosmological to argue the position of theism.
 

 Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument 
 
 Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument The Kalām 
cosmological argument (sometimes capitalized as Kalam Cosmological Argument; 
abbreviated KCA) is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the 
existence of God rooted in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage in medieval Islamic 
scholasticism. An outspoken ...
 
 
 
 View on en.wikipedia.org 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 

 But they found ways to run around the subject and present their own arguments. 
 As I mentioned to fuxero, MMY decided to avoid the infinite regress argument 
by presenting his idean of the Unified Field.
 

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

 These Crash Courses are good at instructing the ignorant masses.   

 At about 8:15 in, he states that Aquinas takes it as a given that everything 
must have a cause other than itself, and that therefore, his argument of God as 
"first cause" is self-defeating because why wouldn't "God" have to abide by the 
same "rules."  I thought that was one of the deals with theism - no "God" 
doesn't abide by the same "rules" as his creation.  
 

 I don't try to talk intelligently about any of this because I'm such a novice, 
but just read the Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy 
that would allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist, in theory.  
 

 Seems to get down to the age-old discussion of dualistic vs non-dualistic 
view/approach.   
 


 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

The apparent weaknesses in the arguments of Aquinas is probably the reason why 
MMY decided to explain existence in holistic terms, such as the 
rishi-devata-chandas relationship within the Unified Field.  Dr. Tony Nader 
gave a lecture at Stanford on this subject about a year ago, which is available 
on YouTube.
 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Be aware that "first cause" in Aquinas's thinking doesn't mean *temporal* first 
cause but *ontological* first cause. 

 

 

 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas on God

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

These Crash Courses are good at instructing the ignorant masses.   

 At about 8:15 in, he states that Aquinas takes it as a given that everything 
must have a cause other than itself, and that therefore, his argument of God as 
"first cause" is self-defeating because why wouldn't "God" have to abide by the 
same "rules."  I thought that was one of the deals with theism - no "God" 
doesn't abide by the same "rules" as his creation.  
 

 I don't try to talk intelligently about any of this because I'm such a novice, 
but just read the Buddhist idea of Dependent Co-Arising, which is a philosophy 
that would allow for the concept of infinite regression to exist, in theory.  
 

 Seems to get down to the age-old discussion of dualistic vs non-dualistic 
view/approach.   
 


 

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

 The Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  Also discusses flaws and 
counterarguments.
 Aquinas basically examines causes and effects, saying that if one traces 
origins backwards, there can't be an infinite regress.  But on the contrary, 
that could be a  false presumption on his part.
 

 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY
 
 Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course P... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY Our unit on the philosophy of 
religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today, we 
consider his first four arguments: the cosmological ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 Turquoise,
 I am all for exploring outside the box. Though, of course, simple being 
outside the box, by it self,  does not make something useful and valid. Perhaps 
nine of ten, or 99 out of 100 things outside the box are dross and dead-ends. 
But finding that one thing can I would hope, make the effort worthwhile. 

 

 The demarcations of what is inside the box and outside may vary.  At large 
scale,  Xeno had some wonderful replies to a set of Dev. posts. recently.  One 
theme being the universality of (at least) many religions and paths towards 
unfolding that what is inside the inner box  is the same as that which is 
outside (the inner) box.  On a more focussed scale, some may be living within a 
quite small box and venturing outside is indeed may feel to be an escape from 
Plato's Cave. I realize that like Russian dolls, others may be living inside a 
larger box, already containing my little box and what to me are astonishing 
insights are child's play to them.  And if not abusing the analogy, we may be 
living in different boxes pertaining to different spheres of our lives. For 
example, someone well grounded in physics is living in a far vaster box than me 
in that domain, though (well for the sake of argument) I may be living in a 
larger box in at least a few domains within which their box is comparatively 
smaller.
 

 And it appears sometimes, what appears to be a large box is simply filled with 
hot air, smoke and mirrors. That is, a concise simple view may actually be a 
huge box -- having cut through all the jungle clutter. Thus, my suggesting that 
you have viewed the Gita in simple terms is neither a dismissal or compliment 
of your ideas. Each view needs to stand on its own merits.
 

 Some thoughts:
 1) Per the story, prior to  the battlefield, Krishna was Arjuna's friend. Upon 
being asked, Krishna became Arjuna's servant, his charioteer -- a lowly 
position. Only at Arjuna's request, did Krishna take on a role of guidance and 
counsel. Not until quite late in the Gita did Krisha reveal his universal form 
-- again at Arjuna's request.   That form was so overwhelming, Arjuna begged 
Krishna to return to his form as friend. 
 

 Arjuna asked many questions. Having gained insight from Krishna's replies, 
Arjuna placed more weight on Krishna's value as an advisor. By the end, Arjuna 
had all his questions answered, felt from his own view, that Krishna was the 
real deal (for him, Arjuna) and had no qualms about taking the totality of 
Krishna's advice .
 

 2)  From your posts, I know you appreciate the role of metaphors. Many view 
the battlefield in the Gita as metaphor -- which does not validate -- but 
perhaps is worthy of consideration. 
 (a quick cut and past from Wiki)
 

 Eknath Easwaran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eknath_Easwaran writes that the 
Gita '​s subject is the war within, the struggle for self-mastery that every 
human being must wage if he or she is to emerge from life victorious,[53] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-84 and that The language 
of battle is often found in the scriptures, for it conveys the strenuous, long, 
drawn-out campaign we must wage to free ourselves from the tyranny of the ego, 
the cause of all our suffering and sorrow.[54] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-85
 Swami Nikhilananda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Nikhilananda, takes 
Arjuna as an allegory of Ātman, Krishna as an allegory of Brahman 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman, Arjuna's chariot as the body, and 
Dhritarashtra as the ignorance filled mind.[note 7] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-86
 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi, in his commentary on 
the Gita,[55] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-87 
interprets the battle as an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and 
Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil.[56] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-88
 Swami Vivekananda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda also 
emphasised that the first discourse in the Gita related to the war could be 
taken allegorically.[57] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-89 Vivekananda further 
remarked,
 This Kurukshetra War is only an allegory. When we sum up its esoteric 
significance, it means the war which is constantly going on within man between 
the tendencies of good and evil.[58] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-SV-vol4-90
 In Aurobindo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurobindo's view, Krishna was a 
historical figure, but his significance in the Gita is as a symbol of the 
divine dealings with humanity,[59] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-91 while Arjuna typifies a 
struggling human soul.[60] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#cite_note-THD-92 However, Aurobindo 
rejected the interpretation that the Gita, and the Mahabharata by extension, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

 Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found 
it rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
 

 I remember liking it when I heard Marshy's recital on a rounding course. But I 
was loved up at the time and the prevailing emotional mood might have coloured 
my opinion.
 

 I didn't get anything out of this video, it makes my teeth ache. 
 

 Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
 

 I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the 
time we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it 
any more. 
 

 And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
 

 

 The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
 

 TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
 

 SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help in favour of TM. When I got rid of my TM 
books down at Oxfam I left it at home in case some one read it and believed it. 
I think the TMO would be better off rewriting it based on the actual 
experiences of meditators rather than the hyperbolic madness of Maharshi's 
vision of the intended goal.
 

 

 Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's words.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

 

 Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found it 
rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
I remember liking it when I heard Marshy's recital on a rounding course. But I 
was loved up at the time and the prevailing emotional mood might have coloured 
my opinion.
I didn't get anything out of this video, it makes my teeth ache. 
Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
I'm pretty sure that Judas Priest and Motorhead will have been taken out by 
Buck-authorized drone strikes, and will have been replaced on the Top Ten with 
the recorded mooing of cows and Ghadarva Veda music. 

I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the time 
we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it any 
more. 
And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
Because cows figure so prominently in the Vedas, I'm pretty sure that in the 
AofE the very term will be changed to moo-sic.

The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination and honor tell you. 

SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help in favour of TM. 

Back before MIU Press moved away from L.A., they were actually discussing 
pulling it back and editing out all the parts that were proving legally 
challenging for them. 

When I got rid of my TM books down at Oxfam I left it at home in case some one 
read it and believed it. I think the TMO would be better off rewriting it based 
on the actual experiences of meditators rather than the hyperbolic madness of 
Maharshi's vision of the intended goal.
IYou're not suggesting those two things are different, are you? Here, Rick 
Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's 
words.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
  #yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888 -- #yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp #yiv1414364888hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp #yiv1414364888ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp .yiv1414364888ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp .yiv1414364888ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888ygrp-mkp .yiv1414364888ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv1414364888ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888ygrp-sponsor #yiv1414364888ygrp-lc #yiv1414364888hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888ygrp-sponsor #yiv1414364888ygrp-lc .yiv1414364888ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv1414364888
 #yiv1414364888activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv1414364888 
#yiv1414364888activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv1414364888 #yiv1414364888activity span 
.yiv1414364888underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1414364888 
.yiv1414364888attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv1414364888 .yiv1414364888attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1414364888 .yiv1414364888attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv1414364888 .yiv1414364888attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv1414364888 .yiv1414364888attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv1414364888 blockquote 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ooops. Damned computer sent it before I finished my last comment...

  From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 10:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found it 
rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
I remember liking it when I heard Marshy's recital on a rounding course. But I 
was loved up at the time and the prevailing emotional mood might have coloured 
my opinion.
I didn't get anything out of this video, it makes my teeth ache. 
Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
I'm pretty sure that Judas Priest and Motorhead will have been taken out by 
Buck-authorized drone strikes, and will have been replaced on the Top Ten with 
the recorded mooing of cows and Ghandarva Veda music. 

I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the time 
we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it any 
more. 
And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
Because cows figure so prominently in the Vedas, I'm pretty sure that in the 
AofE the very term will be changed to moo-sic.

The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right 
and wrong tell you. 

SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help in favour of TM. 

Back before MIU Press moved away from L.A., they were actually discussing 
pulling it back and editing out all the parts that were proving legally 
challenging for them. 

When I got rid of my TM books down at Oxfam I left it at home in case some one 
read it and believed it. I think the TMO would be better off rewriting it based 
on the actual experiences of meditators rather than the hyperbolic madness of 
Maharshi's vision of the intended goal.
You're not suggesting those two things are different, are you? 
Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's 
words.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
  
I'm pretty sure that they are supposed to represent Buck's ideas of what women 
should be in the Age of Enlightenment -- dressed in saris, subservient, and 
lost in mindless adoration for Maharishi.
The men aren't shown in this video because they're in their own classes, 
learning how to pilot the drones used to kill anyone who doesn't obey the Laws 
Of Nature. 





  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right 
and wrong tell you. Ha ha! I never thought of it that way, but you are right. 
  From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    Ooops. Damned computer sent it before I finished my last comment...

  From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 10:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found it 
rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
I remember liking it when I heard Marshy's recital on a rounding course. But I 
was loved up at the time and the prevailing emotional mood might have coloured 
my opinion.
I didn't get anything out of this video, it makes my teeth ache. 
Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
I'm pretty sure that Judas Priest and Motorhead will have been taken out by 
Buck-authorized drone strikes, and will have been replaced on the Top Ten with 
the recorded mooing of cows and Ghandarva Veda music. 

I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the time 
we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it any 
more. 
And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
Because cows figure so prominently in the Vedas, I'm pretty sure that in the 
AofE the very term will be changed to moo-sic.

The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right 
and wrong tell you. 

SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help in favour of TM. 

Back before MIU Press moved away from L.A., they were actually discussing 
pulling it back and editing out all the parts that were proving legally 
challenging for them. 

When I got rid of my TM books down at Oxfam I left it at home in case some one 
read it and believed it. I think the TMO would be better off rewriting it based 
on the actual experiences of meditators rather than the hyperbolic madness of 
Maharshi's vision of the intended goal.
You're not suggesting those two things are different, are you? 
Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's 
words.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
  
I'm pretty sure that they are supposed to represent Buck's ideas of what women 
should be in the Age of Enlightenment -- dressed in saris, subservient, and 
lost in mindless adoration for Maharishi.
The men aren't shown in this video because they're in their own classes, 
learning how to pilot the drones used to kill anyone who doesn't obey the Laws 
Of Nature. 





 #yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705 -- #yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0758306705 
#yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0758306705 
#yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp #yiv0758306705hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp #yiv0758306705ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp .yiv0758306705ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp .yiv0758306705ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705ygrp-mkp .yiv0758306705ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0758306705 #yiv0758306705ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv0758306705ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0758306705 
#yiv0758306705ygrp-sponsor

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:21 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By 
Your Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and 
right and wrong tell you. 

Ha ha! I never thought of it that way, but you are right. 
I'd love to hear those who diss the Koran while praising the Gita explain to me 
how the latter is any less of a call for Jihad (holy war) than the former. 
In both books you've got the spiritual figure (Muhammed in the former, Krishna 
in the latter) telling the faithful that it's their DUTY to go out and kill 
thousands of people, *just because he says so*. Not only is this the way that 
they achieve dharma (holy action, right action), it's the way that they attain 
liberation in the afterlife. The only real difference I can see is that 
Muhammed promises the dweebs who do what he tells them to do a bunch of virgins 
in the afterlife and Krishna promises them moksha. And historically, followers 
of both books have used them to justify their religious wars.
My suggestion is that Maharishi (and most commentators on the B-G) have never 
seen this aspect of it because they grew up conditioned to do whatever a 
supposedly religious figure told them to do. Devotion to the spiritual figure 
is seen as a given, something they can't conceive of as being questionable or 
having negative consequences. Having accepted this as not only normal but the 
highest dharma, they can't take that critical step back and see that what the 
religious figure is telling them to do is go out and kill as many of their 
fellow human beings (in the Gita's case, their own relatives) as possible, just 
because he says so.
In a very real sense, Krishna in the Gita is the counterpart of Buck at FFL. 
We should send drones to kill these people I have designated as heretics. And 
we should do this because I say so. So there. 



 From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    Ooops. Damned computer sent it before I finished my last comment...

  From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 10:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   
    From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found it 
rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
I remember liking it when I heard Marshy's recital on a rounding course. But I 
was loved up at the time and the prevailing emotional mood might have coloured 
my opinion.
I didn't get anything out of this video, it makes my teeth ache. 
Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
I'm pretty sure that Judas Priest and Motorhead will have been taken out by 
Buck-authorized drone strikes, and will have been replaced on the Top Ten with 
the recorded mooing of cows and Ghandarva Veda music. 

I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the time 
we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it any 
more. 
And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
Because cows figure so prominently in the Vedas, I'm pretty sure that in the 
AofE the very term will be changed to moo-sic.

The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right 
and wrong tell you. 

SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
    From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

Will there be any heavy metal in the Age of Enlightenment? What sort of Heaven 
on Earth would it be without my Judas Priest and Motorhead albums?
I'm pretty sure that Judas Priest and Motorhead will have been taken out by 
Buck-authorized drone strikes, and will have been replaced on the Top Ten with 
the recorded mooing of cows and Ghandarva Veda music. 

I have discussed this with TM teachers and opinion divides between: By the time 
we get there we will be so evolved and refined we won't want to hear it any 
more. 
And the much more preferable: Of course, all expression of music are 
expressions of the Ved and will have their place. But the guy who said that was 
a jazz musician and hated the AofE music as much as I do. 
Because cows figure so prominently in the Vedas, I'm pretty sure that in the 
AofE the very term will be changed to moo-sic.



The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
TBG felt to me like he was trying to cram his theories into a story where they 
don't belong. If you read the verses on their own you get a different idea of 
what the story is all about. And the technique for gaining enlightenment it 
describes doesn't remind me of TM at all!
Exactly. At its heart, the Gita is the story of Doing What You're Told By Your 
Superiors, no matter what your own sense of discrimination, honor, and right 
and wrong tell you. 

SoB,AoL is just scary fundamentalism and probably dangerous with things like 
its dismissal of all psychiatric help in favour of TM. 

Back before MIU Press moved away from L.A., they were actually discussing 
pulling it back and editing out all the parts that were proving legally 
challenging for them. 

When I got rid of my TM books down at Oxfam I left it at home in case some one 
read it and believed it. I think the TMO would be better off rewriting it based 
on the actual experiences of meditators rather than the hyperbolic madness of 
Maharshi's vision of the intended goal.
You're not suggesting those two things are different, are you? 
Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's 
words.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
  
I'm pretty sure that they are supposed to represent Buck's ideas of what women 
should be in the Age of Enlightenment -- dressed in saris, subservient, and 
lost in mindless adoration for Maharishi.
The men aren't shown in this video because they're in their own classes, 
learning how to pilot the drones used to kill anyone who doesn't obey the Laws 
Of Nature. 





 #yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128 -- #yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp #yiv3429431128hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp #yiv3429431128ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp .yiv3429431128ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp .yiv3429431128ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128ygrp-mkp .yiv3429431128ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv3429431128ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128ygrp-sponsor #yiv3429431128ygrp-lc #yiv3429431128hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128ygrp-sponsor #yiv3429431128ygrp-lc .yiv3429431128ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv3429431128
 #yiv3429431128activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv3429431128 
#yiv3429431128activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv3429431128 #yiv3429431128activity span 
.yiv3429431128underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3429431128 
.yiv3429431128attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv3429431128 .yiv3429431128attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv3429431128 .yiv3429431128attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv3429431128 .yiv3429431128attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv3429431128 .yiv3429431128attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv3429431128 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[salyavin808]

 

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

 Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's words.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

 

 Blimey, TM videos are weird, what are all those people sitting in the 
background supposed to represent?
 




 



 

 I'm pretty sure that they are supposed to represent Buck's ideas of what women 
should be in the Age of Enlightenment -- dressed in saris, subservient, and 
lost in mindless adoration for Maharishi.
 

 It's not men and women in the TMO, it's men and ladies, that deliberately puts 
quite an expectation on them I suspect.
 


 This is the vedic woman concept Marshy was keen to introduce, women with a 
different, more nurturing role than the men, supporting them as they go about 
their important business.
 

 

 The men aren't shown in this video because they're in their own classes, 
learning how to pilot the drones used to kill anyone who doesn't obey the Laws 
Of Nature. 

 

 Is there a TM drone patch yet?
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love and God by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

My understanding is that both SOBAL and the Bhagavad Gita Commentary were MMY's 
recorded words, perhaps tidied up a bit for written form. 

 

 L
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote :

 Anyone got anything positive to say about this book? I did read it but found 
it rather dreary. It fails as poetry and it fails as mystical literature. Am I 
missing something?
 

 The fact that MMY's other books (which do have something to recommend them) 
Science of Being and Art of Living and On the Bhagavad-Gita were mainly penned 
by his ghost writers is perhaps ominous. But Love and God seems to have been 
composed by His Holiness himself. 
 

 Here, Rick Stanley adds some genuine feeling to Maharishi's words.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tEPXhfDnQ

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/24/2014 7:40 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:



Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly.


Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone 
explain to him the importance of the experience of unbounded 
awareness.  I guess he's got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.


But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, 
he explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying 
into), and he mumbles, It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, 
not important at all


Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.

Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.


/The condition is called cognitive dissonance - that's when a person 
holds two or more conflicting beliefs at the same time. Barry used to be 
a professed Buddhist who believed in karma and a Self or Spirit that 
reincarnates after biological death.


//Logically in order for //metempsychosis to work there must be a 
reincarnating soul-monad - a self that reincarnates - a person that 
reaps the karma of past or present actions. But  the historical Buddha 
denied the existence of the Atman. Go figure.//

//
//Barry posted this information to alt.religion.gnostic several years 
ago and he also mentioned on FFL his belief in the Tibetan Bardo state. 
Barry apparently studied American Buddhism under the Zen Master Rama and 
converted in 1977.

/
//This sets up the dissonance conflict because some people get confused 
by not understanding why some people who go around doing good and have 
good intentions, are yet forced to suffer and vice-versa - many times 
people that go around doing bad things, get rewarded. The theory of 
karma or causation is almost inconceivable.


So, w///hat happened to Barry is simple: after living in NE for so many 
years, he obviously has succumbed to peer pressure and has been turned 
into a materialist or a naive realist. ///You can understand how easy it 
is to get mentally brain-washed by reading about young people that go 
radical after watching just a single video. Some people are very 
susceptible to suggestion. Go figure.


/It is sometimes very difficult to stay on a spiritual path when your 
own family and friends don't believe in anything and you feel like a 
stranger in a strange land. Sometimes people tend to conform to the 
level of consciousness that surrounds them and they begin to reflect 
that on social media. It's not complicated..


/




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

On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:



This sounds like a pretzeling moment



/It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which
means actions, past and present. If a person does good deeds, he
or she will be reborn in a better life. ///On the other hand, if a
person does bad things, in the past or present, he or she will get
reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory situation. /It's
not complicated.//

In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the
work and realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has
really good karma, may not have to be reborn again, unless they
choose to do so, to help the rest of the world get free. //But,
you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going
to get.//
//
//So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have
figured out - *I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you
do back. */




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@...
mailto:punditster@... wrote :




/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's
preference for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn
is a born-again Christian. What about Barry's claim that a
belief in God is a form of mental illness. /


//
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@...
mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:



This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.



/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental
stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds
two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the
same time.//
//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting
some roughness by posting contradictory messages to the
group. Everyone already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas,
karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam
Harris' new book. ///Everyone already knows that (except
apparently Xeno).

/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't
understand 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

well, it's also as you said previously, Richard, experiencing unbounded 
awareness is pretty much its own verification. 

 I remember, as an aside, someone asking Maharishi, (this was on a tape), why 
is the experience of unbounded awareness blissful.  His response was that, that 
is its nature.  The person kept pressing him, and finally he said, why is 
water wet?, why does fire burn?.  It is its nature.
 

 Sure, I guess you can unpack the experience of unbounded awareness we can have 
when we meditate, but it appears to me, at least, to be an enjoyable experience 
at the time we experience it, and when that broadened awareness carries over 
into activity, or even sleeping and dreaming as well, although in my case, I 
don't notice it in those other two states as much.
 

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

 On 10/24/2014 7:40 PM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
 
   Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly.
 
 
 Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone explain 
to him the importance of the experience of unbounded awareness.  I guess he's 
got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.
 
 
 But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, he 
explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying into), and he 
mumbles, It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, not important at all
 
 
 Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.
 
 
 Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.


 
 The condition is called cognitive dissonance - that's when a person holds two 
or more conflicting beliefs at the same time. Barry used to be a professed 
Buddhist who believed in karma and a Self or Spirit that reincarnates after 
biological death. 
 
 Logically in order for metempsychosis to work there must be a reincarnating 
soul-monad - a self that reincarnates - a person that reaps the karma of past 
or present actions. But  the historical Buddha denied the existence of the 
Atman. Go figure. 
 
 Barry posted this information to alt.religion.gnostic several years ago and 
he also mentioned on FFL his belief in the Tibetan Bardo state. Barry 
apparently studied American Buddhism under the Zen Master Rama and converted in 
1977.
 
 This sets up the dissonance conflict because some people get confused by not 
understanding why some people who go around doing good and have good 
intentions, are yet forced to suffer and vice-versa - many times people that go 
around doing bad things, get rewarded. The theory of karma or causation is 
almost inconceivable.
 
 So, what happened to Barry is simple: after living in NE for so many years, he 
obviously has succumbed to peer pressure and has been turned into a materialist 
or a naive realist. You can understand how easy it is to get mentally 
brain-washed by reading about young people that go radical after watching just 
a single video. Some people are very susceptible to suggestion. Go figure.
 
 It is sometimes very difficult to stay on a spiritual path when your own 
family and friends don't believe in anything and you feel like a stranger in a 
strange land. Sometimes people tend to conform to the level of consciousness 
that surrounds them and they begin to reflect that on social media. It's not 
complicated.. 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 This sounds like a pretzeling moment 

 
 It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means actions, 
past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will be reborn in a 
better life. On the other hand, if a person does bad things, in the past or 
present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory 
situation. It's not complicated. 
 
 In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work and 
realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good karma, may 
not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to help the rest of 
the world get free. But, you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you 
are going to get.
 
 So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have figured out - 
I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do back. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 

 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental illness. 
 
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

/It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by
leaving out of the discussion all the interesting stuff Barry
believes in - like karma and reincarnation.
/


//
On 10/23/2014 10:21 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:



I do not have time to read everything Barry writes. I have no idea
what he believes about karma and reincarnation, we have never
discussed it and I have not read what he said about it, if
anything. We seem to disagree about the nature of free will. No
one on this forum needs enabling to post what they think. Of
course I never intended to include any of what you say.



/You've spent what, hours dialoging with Barry about believing in God 
being a form of mental illness, and you don't even know what Barry 
believes in? Go figure./




/
//What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris'
book.Go figure.

//Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference
for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a belief in God is a
form of mental illness.
/


//


Why are Cockburn's beliefs of import, Barry likes music and in
particular Cockburn's songs and guitar technique. I like Bach
(Lutheran), Mozart (Catholic), Brahms (probably agnostic), Glass
(Jewish-Taoist-Hindu-Toltec-Buddhist); what does that have to do
with [cognitive] dissonance when listening to their music?



/Because the words to Cockburn's songs are all about believing in God? 
Did Mozart or Brahms sing about any songs? /




/How does that work?/


//


Trolls are not that connected to what others post, with comments
skewed tangentially to the ongoing discussion, so you do not need
to know how it works, as that is largely irrelevant to your posts.



/You're still trying to enable Barry. Why do you suppose Barry trolls 
here to post duplicitous messages to get angry responses? A belief in 
God is not a form of mental illness. Everybody already knows that. You 
are supposed to listen to the words of the songs BEFORE you post your 
comments. Thanks./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for 
Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again 
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of 
mental illness. /



//
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalo...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:



This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.



/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or 
discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more 
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.//

//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some 
roughness by posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone 
already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation 
and that he bought and read Sam Harris' new book. ///Everyone already 
knows that (except apparently Xeno).


/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand 
what Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear 
case for the value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in 
Buddhist meditation.


Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This sounds like a pretzeling moment 
 

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

 

   Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental illness. 

 
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
 one of them was denied security clearance.




 
 This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or discomfort 
experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, 
ideas, or values at the same time.
 
 What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some roughness by 
posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone already knows that Barry 
believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam 
Harris' new book. Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno). 
 
 The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand what 
Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear case for the 
value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in Buddhist 
meditation. 
 
 Go figure.
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


This sounds like a pretzeling moment



/It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means 
actions, past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will 
be reborn in a better life. ///On the other hand, if a person does bad 
things, in the past or present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a 
less than satisfactory situation. /It's not complicated.//


In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work 
and realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good 
karma, may not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to 
help the rest of the world get free. But, you are only going to get 
as much enlightenment as you are going to get.//

//
//So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have 
figured out - *I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do 
back. */





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




/Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference
for Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again
Christian. What about Barry's claim that a belief in God is a
form of mental illness. /


//
On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@...
mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:



This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which
one of them was denied security clearance.



/This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or
discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.//
//
//What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some
roughness by posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone
already knows that Barry believes in Buddhas, karma, and
reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam Harris' new book.
///Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno).

/The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't
understand what Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris
makes a clear case for the value of spirituality, which he bases
on his experiences in Buddhist meditation.

Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Xeno, me too! During some of my early meditations, I just wanted to jump up and 
run out of the room. But I just knew that it was what I had been wanting, 
just as I knew I was gonna start TM even before the lecturers said anything. 
In retrospect it seems like an amazing time in my life. 

I'll just relay what I told the Jehovah Witnesses when they informed me that 
the bible says TM is the work of the devil: based on my own experience, I think 
TM is a good thing. And I'm willing to risk my soul on that conclusion.
There was nothing more they could say. They walked away.
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:56 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

     Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I 
had had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to 
meditate, a natural consequence of being lazy. 
The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised the 
quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince me 
the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general is 
of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:

The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.
Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM teachers 
who were working for him) would sign official research documents with Jai Guru 
Dev. As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and instantly 
use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at the time had 
meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and teachers on 
most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely popular movement.
But Benson needed to be able to clone TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, ONE. 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.
TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, and 
by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial studies. 
But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually came to 
be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very clinical take on life anyway.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

WRT TM, I never got a snow job or a hard sell. In 1972, I was student teaching 
in a non traditional high school. One of the other student teachers explained 
the bubble diagram to me. Also during this time, my husband and I were doing 
marijuana approx 3 times a year. I wished that I could have that high in a 
natural way. We also did a yoga class. I caught a cold.

Now fast forward three years. I'm in Yes health food restaurant in DC. A 
gorgeous young man comes up to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Lawson, Skip was my dissertation advisor and I remember when he was working 
with Langer on this paper. 
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:34 PM, lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

     The late Skip Alexander, who used to head the Psychology Dept at MUM, 
co-edited a book that examined post-maslow development.
He wrote the chapter on Vedic Psychology, and prominent  
mainstream-psychologists wrote chapters on post-Maslow, -post-Piagetian, etc., 
psychology.
_Higher Stages of Human Development_ -Alexander and Langer, ed.
May still be in print.
[You can't have my autographed copy, sorry]
L

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  


  On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
  

 From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed valueis. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of spiritual practices, the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don'tseem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 


  

  From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mentalillness
 
 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not alsowreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, you want something silly?  I give you something silly. 

 Barry is having a near panic attack, pleading, insisting that someone explain 
to him the importance of the experience of unbounded awareness.  I guess he's 
got a turd he wants to drop on that or something.
 

 But, here. Get this.  Ask Barry to explain, how as a declared atheist, he 
explains karma, and rebirth, (which he is on record of buying into), and he 
mumbles, It's not important.  It doesn't matter. No, not important at all
 

 Richard, explain that to me, please,it you can.
 

 Go figure?  No. I haven't figured that out.
 

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

 On 10/24/2014 8:44 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

 This sounds like a pretzeling moment 

 
 It seems dirt simple to me. We are all bound by karma, which means actions, 
past and present. If a person does good deeds, he or she will be reborn in a 
better life. On the other hand, if a person does bad things, in the past or 
present, he or she will get reborn in hell, or a less than satisfactory 
situation. It's not complicated. 
 
 In some rare cases, if a person follows a spiritual path, does the work and 
realizes enlightenment, that person, if he or she has really good karma, may 
not have to be reborn again, unless they choose to do so, to help the rest of 
the world get free. But, you are only going to get as much enlightenment as you 
are going to get.
 
 So, based on my experience, what I've been told and what I have figured out - 
I believe in Life; what it does to you and what you do back. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
punditster@... mailto:punditster@... wrote :
 
 

 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental illness. 
 
 On 10/24/2014 12:03 AM, blue_bungalow_2@... mailto:blue_bungalow_2@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
 This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
 non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
 one of them was denied security clearance.




 
 This is an example of cognitive dissonance - the mental stress or discomfort 
experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, 
ideas, or values at the same time.
 
 What I'm trying to do is alert Barry that he is exhibiting some roughness by 
posting contradictory messages to the group. Everyone already knows that Barry 
believes in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation and that he bought and read Sam 
Harris' new book. Everyone already knows that (except apparently Xeno). 
 
 The thing that doesn't make any sense is, why Barry didn't understand what 
Harris wrote. It seems pretty simple to me. Harris makes a clear case for the 
value of spirituality, which he bases on his experiences in Buddhist 
meditation. 
 
 Go figure.

 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com


From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

 
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
value that you have found in these experiences of unboundedness. How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why construct a system to give people these experiences?

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these experiences of unboundedness and heaven or hell? 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been seeking. 


I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness. But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings presenting 
options for a new direction in which to run, without ever making a case for WHY 
you are running in the first place.  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word




 From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com


From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

 
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
value that you have found in these experiences of unboundedness. How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why construct a system to give people these experiences?

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these experiences of unboundedness and heaven or hell? 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been
 seeking. 


I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness. But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings presenting 
options for a new direction in which to run, without ever making a case for WHY 
you are running in the first place.  :-)







 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of spiritual practices, the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 



 




 From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com


From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

 
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
value that you have found in these experiences of unboundedness. How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[blue_bungalo...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 



 From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... 
   Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

--- turquoiseb@... wrote :

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

It depends on what one wants in life.  Let's say that there 
are basicaly two paths, left path and right path. If the 
left path is a one way trip, the right path is cyclical 
trip. The BG mentions it as sun path and moon path.



Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of spiritual practices, the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 

 

  
 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

     From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of spiritual practices, the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 


  

  From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
    From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 3:33 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

**
For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything 
kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in 
which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had 
been seeking.

*
*I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking 
about finding alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- 
methods of giving people these experiences of unboundedness. But it 
strikes me that neither of you have ever taken a step back and told us 
WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these experiences in the first 
place, and more important, what objective *value* these experiences 
bring to your life or to the lives of others.


I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out 
that you and Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of 
lemmings presenting options for a new direction in which to run, 
without ever making a case for WHY you are running in the first place. :-)



/Maybe we should review//://
//
//The purpose of yoga, both Buddhist and Hindu, is to liberate man from 
suffering; so that they do not have to be reincarnated again and bound 
by karma. Everyone already knows this. Sam Harris already told you this 
- didn't you read his book?


'The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason'
by Sam Harris
W.W. Norton  Company, 2004
p. 214


///

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 5:04 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word


/You failed to answer Barry's main question: what is the value of the 
spiritual life?/





*From:* TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


*From:* Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

*
From:* TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*From:* anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there 
a way to construct a system that gives us these experiences of 
unboundedness that does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility 
weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these 
experiences of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely 
assumed by centuries of religious fanatics trying to convince others 
that its value trumps everything else.


I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to 
invent a better system, make a case for these types of experience 
having a value in the first place. Most religions have never tried to 
do this. They just make declarations like Maharishi did, along the 
lines of The purpose of life is to achieve these experiences of 
unboundedness, which then become dogma and are repeated and believed 
by successive generations of believers. But he never said WHY these 
experiences were supposedly worth achieving.


Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a 
value, then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


*Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at 
best we just stumble into them. If the value to the individual is 
great enough, they will find a way. What was of value to me though, 
might not be of value to another.

*
I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. 
DEFINE this value that you have found in these experiences of 
unboundedness. How *exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone 
else's life), in objective terms?


, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately 
played out for me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in 
his new book Waking Up, a Guide to Spirituality without Religion.


And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might 
be valuable.


These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having 
them but as to how they can be interpreted is another question. What 
you are told in a particular tradition might not be a particularly 
good way to describe them if they tend to reinforce an impacted belief 
system. My view, at the moment, is the nervous system is relieving 
itself of something, but it is difficult to tell just what that 
something is. I would say the interesting spiritual experiences are 
just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are not 
really of real import.


Then why construct a system to give people these experiences?

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the 
point of the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of 
both, and avoid being sucked either way.


WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection 
between these experiences of unboundedness and heaven or hell?


For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything 
kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in 
which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had 
been seeking.

*
*I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking 
about finding alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- 
methods of giving people these experiences of unboundedness. But it 
strikes me that neither of you have ever taken a step back and told us 
WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these experiences in the first 
place, and more important, what objective *value* these experiences 
bring to your life or to the lives of others.


I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out 
that you and Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of 
lemmings presenting options for a new direction in which to run, 
without ever making a case for WHY you are running in the first place. :-)





*

*

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Well said Barry - and I agree with every word


On 10/23/2014 5:59 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:


It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever 
stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case for 
what that value might be.


/The answer is simple: you should know the truth and the truth will set 
you free from ignorance. We are either free or we are bound. If free, 
there is no need for //yoga; if bound by what means can we free ourselves?//

//
//It looks like we are back to Buddhism 101. In over forty years of 
studying with teachers and practicing you still don't seem to fully 
understand what it is you have been //seeking. So, let's start from the 
very beginning: //Buddhism is a non-theistic religion of beliefs and 
practices largely based on the teachings attributed to Siddhartha 
Gautama, who is commonly known as the historical Buddha, the awakened 
one, the awakened one Sam Harris was talking about in his recent 
book, Waking Up. //

//
//According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the 
eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th 
centuries BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or 
enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end 
their suffering from - karma (from Sanskrit: action, work) is the force 
that drives samsara—the cycle of suffering and rebirth for each being.//

//
//Works cited://
//
//Buddhism from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition.//
//http://www.britannica.com///
//
//Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, p. 40/


Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they 
have or claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, 
they can't really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are 
valuable, or WHAT that supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this 
oversight is epidemic in the world of spiritual practices, the 
elephant in the room that no one ever talks about. The people 
promoting these practices just *assume* that these experiences they're 
having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate the 
supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many 
who have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried 
to make a case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. 
What is it that they hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to 
do so?


/Non sequitur. I already answered this question in a previous post./



Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim 
Flanegin said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the 
way he has do not count.  :-)  :-)  :-)


/Non sequitur.

/


It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people 
urging others to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any 
real-world, payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just 
*assume* that there is a payoff, and try to bluff their way through 
without ever specifying what it is. Millions and millions of seekers 
over the ages, and almost none of them have ever come up with a real 
*value* for all this seeking they're devoting their lives to. I'm NOT 
suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that no one ever 
seems to talk about it if there is. 


/Non sequitur.//I already rebutted this statement in a previous post./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is 
a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment 
experience - What do you find?   Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they 
are not relevant today - today its What are you bringing to the table?   BTW, 
you don't have to tell us . . . 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our 
brain that want to be activated?


/According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's 
only natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said that 
the way into bliss is the way out of suffering.//

//
//So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: 
we all suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. 
The truth is that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or 
from a previous life. There is no exception to karma, from the highest 
god or deva down to a single blade of grass. //

//
//The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening 
to the truth of how things really are. If you know the truth you will be 
free. Yoga is immortality and freedom. //

//
//According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the 
actions in this life and in your past lives. You can remove the 
samskaras through tapas - burning off the accumulated layers of past 
actions through meditation and other yoga practices. But a practice will 
not remove all the samskaras - even for an accomplished yogi there's 
always a trace of karma because they still maintain a human body with 
air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, volitions and 
desires. //

//
//A siddha yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free 
while still in living in a human body, a jivan-mukti - for them there 
is no return; everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to 
the other shore; totally gone. No come back no more.//Free./





On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:



*From:* Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever 
stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case for 
what that value might be.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 9:02 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and 
there is a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your 
moment to moment experience - What do you find?


/Teachers and textbooks are like fingers pointing at the moon - they are 
valid means of knowledge - we all depend on verbal testimony for most of 
our understanding. SBS compared enlightenment to Light (Brahman). The 
Absolute is already there; it doesn't require anything else to 
illuminate it because it is an already established fact. The enlightened 
state is described in the Indian rice analogy: you can remove the chaff 
and it's still rice paddy. All you have to do is isolate the relative 
from the absolute and be free. Just don't fall into the false belief 
that the pointing finger is the moon itself./



Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they are not relevant today


/In this day and age hardly anyone reads or understands the Sanskrit 
scriptures. The only hope for enlightenment in this age of Kali is to 
practice karma yoga - giving up the fruits of your labor for the common 
good and seeking out a qualified teacher so you can work out your karma 
with diligence. /



What are you bringing to the table?


/As in a pond, when its influx of water has been blocked, dries up 
gradually through evaporation and use, so karmic matter, which has been 
acquired through millions of lives, is erased through yoga; there is no 
further unflux - Wallah Sutra, I.4/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and other 
teachers who suggest that the old ways of liberation are best suited to 
masculine physiologies.
He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass window, 
which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the dirt off the 
window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the glass. 

But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning and fixing!
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
  
 Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain that 
want to be activated? 
  
 
 According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's only 
natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said that the way 
into bliss is the way out of suffering.
 
 So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: we all 
suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. The truth is 
that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or from a previous life. 
There is no exception to karma, from the highest god or deva down to a single 
blade of grass.  
 
 The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening to the 
truth of how things really are. If you know the truth you will be free. Yoga is 
immortality and freedom. 
 
 According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the actions in 
this life and in your past lives. You can remove the samskaras through tapas - 
burning off the accumulated layers of past actions through meditation and 
other yoga practices. But a practice will not remove all the samskaras - even 
for an accomplished yogi there's always a trace of karma because they still 
maintain a human body with air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. 
 
 A siddha yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free while 
still in living in a human body, a jivan-mukti - for them there is no return; 
everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to the other shore; 
totally gone. No come back no more. Free.
 
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   
 
 From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
     Well said Barry - and I agree with every word
 
 It's NOT that I'm saying  that seeking spiritual experiences  ISN'T valuable. 
I'm  just pointing out that almost no one  in history has ever stepped up to 
the plate and made an objective,  scientific case for what that value might be.
 
 
  #yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133 -- #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp #yiv6444222133hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp #yiv6444222133ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-mkp .yiv6444222133ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor #yiv6444222133ygrp-lc #yiv6444222133hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133ygrp-sponsor #yiv6444222133ygrp-lc .yiv6444222133ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6444222133
 #yiv6444222133activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6444222133 
#yiv6444222133activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6444222133 #yiv6444222133activity span 
.yiv6444222133underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6444222133 
.yiv6444222133attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv6444222133 .yiv6444222133attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6444222133 .yiv6444222133attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6444222133 .yiv6444222133attach label 
{display:block

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, I also appreciate Maharishi's distinction between and enlightened 
person and an enlightened teacher. The person maybe popped into enlightenment 
while eating a strawberry. So then he or she teaches the strawberry eating 
technique. 

OTOH, an enlightened teacher has such a perspective that he or she can see 
exactly where you are in your journey. And can genuinely help you along your 
path.
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:25 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 9:02 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
  
You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is 
a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment 
experience - What do you find?
 
 Teachers and textbooks are like fingers pointing at the moon - they are valid 
means of knowledge - we all depend on verbal testimony for most of our 
understanding. SBS compared enlightenment to Light (Brahman). The Absolute is 
already there; it doesn't require anything else to illuminate it because it is 
an already established fact. The enlightened state is described in the Indian 
rice analogy: you can remove the chaff and it's still rice paddy. All you have 
to do is isolate the relative from the absolute and be free. Just don't fall 
into the false belief that the pointing finger is the moon itself.
 
 
   Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they are not relevant today
 
 In this day and age hardly anyone reads or understands the Sanskrit 
scriptures. The only hope for enlightenment in this age of Kali is to practice 
karma yoga - giving up the fruits of your labor for the common good and seeking 
out a qualified teacher so you can work out your karma with diligence. 
 
 
  What are you bringing to the table?
 
 
 As in a pond, when its influx of water has been blocked, dries up gradually 
through evaporation and use, so karmic matter, which has been acquired through 
millions of lives, is erased through yoga; there is no further unflux - Wallah 
Sutra, I.4
 
  #yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065 -- #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp #yiv2625676065hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp #yiv2625676065ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-mkp .yiv2625676065ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor #yiv2625676065ygrp-lc #yiv2625676065hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065ygrp-sponsor #yiv2625676065ygrp-lc .yiv2625676065ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2625676065
 #yiv2625676065activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
#yiv2625676065activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2625676065 #yiv2625676065activity span 
.yiv2625676065underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2625676065 
.yiv2625676065attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv2625676065 .yiv2625676065bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
.yiv2625676065bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 dd.yiv2625676065last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 dd.yiv2625676065last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2625676065 
dd.yiv2625676065last p span.yiv2625676065yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065file-title a, #yiv2625676065 
div.yiv2625676065file-title a:active, #yiv2625676065 
div.yiv2625676065file-title a:hover, #yiv2625676065 div.yiv2625676065file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2625676065 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that
 previous sentence it might be split brain experiments. When one side of the 
brain of people with this condition are asked to explain why the other side of 
the body did something, it makes up an explanation. 

The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them
 that way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a 
nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual level, I would 
say the ego is involved, that level of personal identity that thinks it is 
running the show. The ego provides the explanations. From a scientific level, 
the experiments that indicate the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 
8 seconds prior to that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would 
mean you are not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking 
Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.

As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.

It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!






 From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com


From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

 
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

  
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system,
 make a case for these
 types of experience having a value in the
 first

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 9:29 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:


Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and 
other teachers who suggest that the old ways of liberation are best 
suited to masculine physiologies.


He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass 
window, which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the 
dirt off the window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the 
glass.


But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning 
and fixing!


It's like the Zen koan: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror:

/There was a zen student named Tai-i who was always sitting in 
meditation. His master Matsu asked him: For what purpose are you 
sitting in meditation?//

//
//The student answered: I am trying to become a Buddha.//
//
//So, the Zen Master picked up a tile and started rubbing it.//
//
//The student asked: For what purpose are you rubbing a tile?//
//
//The Zen Master replied I am rubbing this tile to make a mirror.//
//
//The student asked: How can you rub a tile to make a mirror?//
//
//To which the Zen Master answered: How can you make a Buddha by 
sitting and meditating?/


Zen Buddhism: A History Volume 1
by Heinrich Dumoulin
MacMillan, 1994
 pp. 160-163

http://www.absolutoracle.com/Notezen/Articles/koan1.htm





On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:



On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 
mailto:sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our 
brain that want to be activated?


/According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's 
only natural for anyone to want to be free from suffering. He said 
that the way into bliss is the way out of suffering.//

//
//So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in 
life: we all suffer from repeated birth, old age, sickness and 
eventual death. The truth is that we are all bound by karma, either 
from this life or from a previous life. There is no exception to 
karma, from the highest god or deva down to a single blade of grass. //

//
//The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for 
awakening to the truth of how things really are. If you know the truth 
you will be free. Yoga is immortality and freedom. //

//
//According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the 
actions in this life and in your past lives. You can remove the 
samskaras through tapas - burning off the accumulated layers of past 
actions through meditation and other yoga practices. But a practice 
will not remove all the samskaras - even for an accomplished yogi 
there's always a trace of karma because they still maintain a human 
body with air, water, and food, coarse or fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. //

//
//A siddha yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally 
free while still in living in a human body, a jivan-mukti - for them 
there is no return; everything has been done that needs to be done; 
gone to the other shore; totally gone. No come back no more.//Free./





On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com mailto:turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:



*From:* Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com 
mailto:mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

*Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness


Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T 
valuable. I'm just pointing out that almost no one in history has 
ever stepped up to the plate and made an objective, scientific case 
for what that value might be.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, is he saying something similar to: the Self alone unfolds the Self to 
the Self? That's what it sounds like to me. I think the whole thing is a big, 
fat paradox!
 

 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:17 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

  On 10/23/2014 9:29 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
 
  
     Richard, your posts remind me of how much I appreciate David Deida and 
other teachers who suggest that the old ways of liberation are best suited to 
masculine physiologies. 
  He also compares a soul to the light coming in from a stained glass window, 
which is the body. Via yoga practices we attempt to clean the dirt off the 
window. Via therapy we attempt to fix the cracks in the glass. 
  
  But at a certain point, we realize we are the light. End of cleaning and 
fixing!

 
 It's like the Zen koan: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror:
 
 There was a zen student named Tai-i who was always sitting in meditation. His 
master Matsu asked him: For what purpose are you sitting in meditation?
 
 The student answered: I am trying to become a Buddha.
 
 So, the Zen Master picked up a tile and started rubbing it.
 
 The student asked: For what purpose are you rubbing a tile?
 
 The Zen Master replied I am rubbing this tile to make a mirror.
 
 The student asked: How can you rub a tile to make a mirror?
 
 To which the Zen Master answered: How can you make a Buddha by sitting and 
meditating?
 
 Zen Buddhism: A History Volume 1
 by Heinrich Dumoulin
 MacMillan, 1994
  pp. 160-163
 
 http://www.absolutoracle.com/Notezen/Articles/koan1.htm
 
 
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:11 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   
 
   On 10/23/2014 7:14 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
  
 Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain that  
want to be activated? 
  
 
 According to MMY it is the nature of the mind to want to enjoy - it's only 
natural for anyone  to want to be free from suffering. He said that the way 
into bliss is the way out of suffering.
 
 So, nobody wants to suffer but in fact, suffering is a given in life: we all 
suffer from repeated  birth, old age, sickness and eventual death. The truth is 
that we are all bound by karma, either from this life or from a previous life. 
There is no exception to karma, from  the highest god or deva down to a single 
blade of grass.  
 
 The idea behind yoga is to provide the ideal opportunity for awakening to the 
truth of how things  really are. If you know the truth you will be free. Yoga 
is immortality and freedom. 
 
 According to yoga theory, you build up samskaras due to karma - the actions in 
this life and in your  past lives. You can remove the samskaras through tapas - 
burning off the accumulated layers of past actions through meditation and 
other yoga practices. But a practice will  not remove all the samskaras - even 
for an accomplished yogi there's always a trace of karma because they still 
maintain a human body with air, water, and food, coarse or  fine, and thoughts, 
volitions and desires. 
 
 A siddha yogi is one who has realized the truth and is totally free while 
still in living in a  human body, a jivan-mukti - for them there is no 
return; everything has been done that needs to be done; gone to the other 
shore; totally gone. No come back no more. Free.
 
 
  
 
   On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee 
turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   
 
 From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23,  2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife]  Re: Belief in God is a form of mental  illness
   
     Well said Barry - and I agree with every word
 
 It's NOT that I'm saying  that seeking spiritual experiences  ISN'T valuable. 
I'm  just pointing out that almost no one  in history has ever stepped up to 
the plate and made an objective,  scientific case for what that value might be.
 
 
 
 

 
  #yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388 -- #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7549385388 
#yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7549385388 
#yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp #yiv7549385388hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp #yiv7549385388ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp .yiv7549385388ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp .yiv7549385388ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv7549385388 #yiv7549385388ygrp-mkp .yiv7549385388ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7549385388

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that
 previous sentence it might be split brain experiments. When one side of the 
brain of people with this condition are asked to explain why the other side of 
the body did something, it makes up an explanation. 

The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them
 that way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a 
nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual level, I would 
say the ego is involved, that level of personal identity that thinks it is 
running the show. The ego provides the explanations. From a scientific level, 
the experiments that indicate the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 
8 seconds prior to that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would 
mean you are not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking 
Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.

As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.

It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!




Two travelers are on a road, looking for Ixtlan. 
They ask a passing bird for directions. 
He gives them, then flies off.
Do the travelers go in the direction he pointed them to, or not? 
Whatever their choice, do they ever get to Ixtlan? 
However long their journey, did they ever leave it?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 10:36 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:



Two travelers are on a road, looking for Ixtlan.
They ask a passing bird for directions.
He gives them, then flies off.
Do the travelers go in the direction he pointed them to, or not?
Whatever their choice, do they ever get to Ixtlan?
However long their journey, did they ever leave it?


/This little story by Carlos Castaneda is almost straight out of South 
Asian mythology. Apparently Castaneda got almost all of his inspiration 
from reading books in the UCLA library. This is supposed to be Yaqui 
philosophy - but everyone knows that the native American inhabitants all 
migrated over from Asia. So it's not surprising to see ancient Siberian 
shamanic notions in Yaqui mythology. //

//
/*/Buddha's Parable of the Raft:/*/
//
//Without a ferry or a bridge you can safely cross over a river on a raft.//
//The purpose of the raft is to cross over to the other side.
If you don't have a raft you can build one and use it to cross over.
Once you have crossed over, you can discard the raft.
You would look funny walking around with a raft on your head.//
//
/*/Zen Koan the Gateless Gate:/*/
//
//There is a long, winding spiritual path to get to the gate.
You must pass through the gate in order to get to the other side.
Once you pass through, you find that  there is no path, no going, no 
gate, and no other side.

So, we call it the gateless gate.

//http://www.spiritualliving360.com/index.php/zen-koan-case-of-carrying-the-raft-3065//

/http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading12.asp/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

That was a great read, thanks!
 

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

 I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this condition are 
asked to explain why the other side of the body did something, it makes up an 
explanation. 
 

 The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them that way, just as you would a certain 
artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a nice evening. Because social 
interactions are on an individual level, I would say the ego is involved, that 
level of personal identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides 
the explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate the 
brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to that decision 
comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are not really in control 
of anything. Life goes on this and that way. Stuff happens, you think you do 
stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. 
Whatever floats your boat.
 

 As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.
 

 It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I 
have some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell 
you, and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!
 

 


 From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.
 

 But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.
It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!
   

   From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   
    From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
    From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?

Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable...

HOW? I cannot help but notice that you have avoided my question. DEFINE this 
value that you have found in these experiences of unboundedness. How 
*exactly* did they improve your life (or anyone else's life), in objective 
terms?

, but it has also been very interesting how they have ultimately played out for 
me. Sam Harris is also promoting those experiences in his new book Waking Up, a 
Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

And, like you, without presenting a convincing reason WHY they might be 
valuable.  

These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having them but as 
to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are told in a 
particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe them if 
they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the moment, is 
the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is difficult to 
tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting spiritual 
experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so they are 
not really of real import. 

Then why construct a system to give people these experiences?

If one is seeking heaven and trying to avoid hell, one is missing the point of 
the search, for the point is to discover the commonality of both, and avoid 
being sucked either way. 

WHY is anyone seeking *either*? And where did you make the connection between 
these experiences of unboundedness and heaven or hell? 

For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, everything kind of 
flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift in which the world, 
as it always had been, was identical with what I had been seeking. 

I'm not sure you get my point. You, like Sam Harris, are talking about finding 
alternative -- theoretically better or more benign -- methods of giving people 
these experiences of unboundedness. But it strikes me that neither of you have 
ever taken a step back and told us WHY you or anyone else really *wants* these 
experiences in the first place, and more important, what objective *value* 
these experiences bring to your life or to the lives of others. 

I *understand* what you're saying...I think. I'm just pointing out that you and 
Harris both seem to sound as if you're inside a herd of lemmings presenting 
options for a new direction in which to run, without ever making a case for WHY 
you are running in the first place.  :-)






 

 

 #yiv6943746459 #yiv6943746459

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I had 
had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to meditate, a 
natural consequence of being lazy.  

 The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
 

 But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
 

 I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised 
the quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince 
me the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general 
is of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
 

 Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:
 

 The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.

 


 Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM 
teachers who were working for him) would sign official research documents with 
Jai Guru Dev. As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and 
instantly use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at 
the time had meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and 
teachers on most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely 
popular movement.

 


 But Benson needed to be able to clone TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, ONE. 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.

 


 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.

 


 TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, 
and by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial 
studies. But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually 
came to be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very clinical take on life anyway.

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 WRT TM, I never got a snow job or a hard sell. In 1972, I was student teaching 
in a non traditional high school. One of the other student teachers explained 
the bubble diagram to me. Also during this time, my husband and I were doing 
marijuana approx 3 times a year. I wished that I could have that high in a 
natural way. We also did a yoga class. I caught a cold.

 

 Now fast forward three years. I'm in Yes health food restaurant in DC. A 
gorgeous young man comes up to my table, doesn't say a word, and leaves a copy 
of Autobiography of a Yogi. I read the book over several months but don't 
understand most of it.
 

 A few months later I'm visiting my Mom. She comments that I seem so peaceful. 
I'm thinking about taking a Tai Chi class at Univ of Maryland, called The Art 
of Moving Meditation.
 

 One beautiful day in March 1975, I take my camera to Rock Creek Park. Along 
the way I stop at a grocery store. As I'm leaving, I see a picture of Maharishi 
for the first time. I don't know why, except for the word meditation, but I 
note the time, date and place of the intro lecture.
 

 When I go to the lecture at my local 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

The late Skip Alexander, who used to head the Psychology Dept at MUM, co-edited 
a book that examined post-maslow development. 

 He wrote the chapter on Vedic Psychology, and prominent  
mainstream-psychologists wrote chapters on post-Maslow, -post-Piagetian, etc., 
psychology.
 

 _Higher Stages of Human Development_ -Alexander and Langer, ed.
 

 May still be in print.
 
[You can't have my autographed copy, sorry]
 

 L
 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 When thinking about why people value certain experiences and do certain 
activities, I like Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a guideline. IOW, once 
certain basic needs are met, then a person seeks to satisfy additional needs. 
Which might not be higher but which might simply involve activating more of the 
brain. Could it be that we're simply compelled by neural pathways in our brain 
that want to be activated? Or are we simply physical organisms seeking 
homeostatis all the time?
 

 Today is Mahalakshmi day. There's a big celebration in the Dome. I haven't 
decided whether I will go or not. Autumn has been so beautiful here. I feel 
happy enough just glancing up from the computer once and a while, out the 
window to the trees and the sky, walking to the post office, doing my everyday 
tasks.
 

 I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to go to the Dome and hopefully 
get blessings from Mahalakshmi in the form of more money and then feel happier. 
I am already feeling happy enough. Much much gratitude...  

 
 


 On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:00 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 

   
 From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   Well said Barry - and I agree with every word

It's NOT that I'm saying that seeking spiritual experiences ISN'T valuable. I'm 
just pointing out that almost no one in history has ever stepped up to the 
plate and made an objective, scientific case for what that value might be. 

Most teachers or seekers just *assume* that these experiences they have or 
claim to have had are valuable, but when called upon to do so, they can't 
really produce any strong arguments for WHY they are valuable, or WHAT that 
supposed value is. I'm suggesting that this oversight is epidemic in the world 
of spiritual practices, the elephant in the room that no one ever talks 
about. The people promoting these practices just *assume* that these 
experiences they're having or seeking are *worth* having or seeking, and debate 
the supposedly best ways of achieving them. But I don't know of very many who 
have taken that step back, beyond the assumption, and have tried to make a 
case for WHY they're so intent on achieving these things. What is it that they 
hope to achieve, and WHY would others want to do so?

Answers such as, Well, I want to have these experiences because Jim Flanegin 
said that I would be a low-vibe slime until I had them the way he has do not 
count.  :-)  :-)  :-)

It's the same problem I see with religion in general. The people urging others 
to join their religions don't seem to ever offer any real-world, 
payoff-in-this-lifetime reasons for doing so. They just *assume* that there is 
a payoff, and try to bluff their way through without ever specifying what it 
is. Millions and millions of seekers over the ages, and almost none of them 
have ever come up with a real *value* for all this seeking they're devoting 
their lives to. I'm NOT suggesting that there isn't one, just pointing out that 
no one ever seems to talk about it if there is. 

 

  
 


 

 From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way 
to construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that 
does not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system.
 

 But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife]]

A slight nit: 

 in the 40 years that Benson has been publishing his book he never, not even 
once, published a head-to-head study of TM vs his Relaxation Response.
 

 In fact, the criticisms that were leveled against Keith Wallace's first study 
apply equally well to Benson's research.
 

 And so, for the past 40 years, comparisons of the effects of two different 
practices were made based on preliminary results of studies that wouldn't be 
published in today's journals.
 

 

 When the American Heart Association meditation practices, they compared all 
the research they could find on every practice, including Benson's Relaxation 
Response.
 

 Their conclusion was that only TM had sufficiently GOOD research with 
sufficiently CONSISTENT effects, to allow them to make a recommendation.
 

 All other practices were given a non-passing grade.
 

 

 Remember: that's 40 years of research coming out of HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
couldn't persuade the AHA to endorse Benson's Relaxation Response.
 

 

 So... to call Benson the foremost meditation scientist is pure BS.
 

 To say that TM blew it by alienating such a great scientist is another bit 
of BS.
 

 L
 

 

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

 Like you Share, I really did not pay attention to the selling points as I had 
had experiences prior to TM, I was just looking for an easy way to meditate, a 
natural consequence of being lazy.  

 The sell was there in the introductory and preparatory lectures and in 
available chart books supposedly showing benefits from the scientific side, but 
I ignored all that at the time. My first few meditations were really rotten, I 
almost quit right there. 
 

 But trying to sell TM to friends who are not really into this kind of thing 
proved more of a challenge. None of my friends ever learned, except for a 
couple, and they never finished the course. A few of my family learned, and 
they all quit too.
 

 I did discover that some of my friends who were teachers, when I criticised 
the quality of the scientific research on TM, would try really had to convince 
me the research was really true. About 1% of research on meditation in general 
is of good quality. Part of that seems to lie with the advertising mentality of 
the TMO.
 

 Dr. Lorin Roche wrote the following:
 

 The Relaxation Response is the term coined by Herbert Benson, M.D., in 1968 or 
so when looking at the physiological data he was getting from TM 
(Transcendental Meditation) meditators who were coming to his lab to be 
measured.

 


 Benson soon got tired of our relentless TM zealotry and the way we (TM 
teachers who were working for him) would sign official research documents with 
Jai Guru Dev. As TM teachers, we wanted to take the results from his lab and 
instantly use them as part of our advertising and our public lectures. TM at 
the time had meditation centers in every major city in the United States, and 
teachers on most every college campus across the country. It was a hugely 
popular movement.

 


 But Benson needed to be able to clone TM, make it into a 
laboratory-standardized technique that could be replicated and measured at 
other labs. That's what science is. So he decided to de-mystify mantras, and he 
started telling people to just pick their own mantra, such as the word, ONE. 
This scandalized the whole TM movement, but he had to do it. And truth be told, 
as far as I know, Benson in his 30 years or so of research on the physiology of 
meditation, publishing hundreds of scientific papers, is probably the greatest 
meditation scientist ever. I trust his findings.

 


 In the late 1960's and early 1970's, TM meditators were the guinea pigs of 
choice for scientists, because there were hundreds of thousands of them in the 
United States alone, and tens of thousands in other countries, their training 
was standardized, and they were so well trained that they could come into a 
medical lab and actually MEDITATE while the scientists stuck needles in their 
arms, electrodes on their heads, hands and hearts, and breathe into 
oxygen-consumption measuring masks. It's hard to find people like that! Think 
about it. Who in their right mind would take out part of their day to do such a 
thing? When I used to do this, in the 70's, it meant driving through ugly 
traffic to UCI Medical School, then going into a lab with a thousand rats in 
cages just a couple dozen feet away, the smell of ether in the air, and letting 
the guys in white coats poke me with huge needles and take blood samples while 
I meditated.

 


 TM blew it, by alienating one of the great scientists at work in the field, 
and by pushing bad science — publishing in their ads the results of trial 
studies. But the Buddhists, by comparison, played it very smart, and gradually 
came to be the favorite of physiological researchers. The Buddhists cheerfully 
cooperated with the needs of scientists, it is a match made in heaven because 
Buddhism is a very 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[nablusoss1008]

 Funny you mention this word. When a journalist in Vlodrop asked who are you 
really Maharishi, he simply said; I'm just a normal human being. Whereupon 
Bevan afterwards remarked; today we got a new understanding of what it means 
to be normal  :-)

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

 Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

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

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:



That was a great read, thanks!



/It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by leaving out 
of the discussion all the interesting stuff Barry believes in - like 
karma and reincarnation. //

//
//What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris' book.Go 
figure.


Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for 
Bruce Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. 
What about Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental 
illness. //

//
//How does that work?/




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

I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social 
interaction. I do not think there is any objective measure by which 
one considers such experiences valuable. There are certain things I 
like, certain things I do not, and I go for the ones I like. While I 
do not know why, those things I like I sometimes like to share with 
others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you post about Bruce 
Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any reliable 
objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall 
Maharishi said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he 
was hawking TM, he skewed the concept to correspond with his 
metaphysic (the transcendental field, the unified field). You do not 
need a field. Basically I think it comes down to you like stuff, and 
don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If there is 
any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this 
condition are asked to explain why the other side of the body did 
something, it makes up an explanation.


The whole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to 
explain why something you like, in this case some kind of meditation 
for example, or the experience that is supposed to result from that, 
should be valuable to someone else. Spiritual endeavours are really 
quite a complex bother, all these things that one has to practice or 
think about, so to get someone to get involved in it really requires a 
real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising about how great 
things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual framework to 
explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get someone to 
come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if it 
doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired 
to a certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in 
feeling good. So there really is not much of a reason for saying such 
experiences as spiritual experiences are valuable, you hawk them that 
way, just as you would a certain artist, a good restaurant, a walk on 
a nice evening. Because social interactions are on an individual 
level, I would say the ego is involved, that level of personal 
identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides the 
explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate 
the brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to 
that decision comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are 
not really in control of anything. Life goes on this and that way. 
Stuff happens, you think you do stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or 
hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.


As for experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that 
way any more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. 
Suppose I put it this way: How would you like to be exactly the way 
you are for as long as you are? This is what I am offering you. It 
will take you about 40 or 50 years, and you will have to do all these 
different things, adopt crazy ideas, do exercises, sit quietly, eat 
special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump in an try this out? 
In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be more 
devious in your enticements.


It all comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. 
Psst, I have some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if 
you let me tell you, and you do what I say, you will be able to say 
every day 'I'm gonna help people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart 
enough, and, doggonit, people like me!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It is the closest word I can think of, that describes a life of enlightenment, 
normal. :-). 

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

 
 Funny you mention this word. When a journalist in Vlodrop asked who are you 
really Maharishi, he simply said; I'm just a normal human being. Whereupon 
Bevan afterwards remarked; today we got a new understanding of what it means 
to be normal  :-)

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

 Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

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

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 On 10/23/2014 11:37 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
 
 That was a great read, thanks!

 
 It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by leaving out of the 
discussion all the interesting stuff Barry believes in - like karma and 
reincarnation.  I do not have time to read everything Barry writes. I have no 
idea what he believes about karma and reincarnation, we have never discussed it 
and I have not read what he said about it, if anything. We seem to disagree 
about the nature of free will. No one on this forum needs enabling to post what 
they think. Of course I never intended to include any of what you say.  
 
 What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris' book. Go figure.
 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental illness.  Why are 
Cockburn's beliefs of import, Barry likes music and in particular Cockburn's 
songs and guitar technique. I like Bach (Lutheran), Mozart (Catholic), Brahms 
(probably agnostic), Glass (Jewish-Taoist-Hindu-Toltec-Buddhist); what does 
that have to do with [cognitive] dissonance when listening to their music? 
 
 How does that work? Trolls are not that connected to what others post, with 
comments skewed tangentially to the ongoing discussion, so you do not need to 
know how it works, as that is largely irrelevant to your posts. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote :
 
 I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this condition are 
asked to explain why the other side of the body did something, it makes up an 
explanation. 
 
 
 Thewhole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them that way, just as you would a certain 
artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a nice evening. Because social 
interactions are on an individual level, I would say the ego is involved, that 
level of personal identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides 
the explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate the 
brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to that decision 
comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are not really in control 
of anything. Life goes on this and that way. Stuff happens, you think you do 
stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. 
Whatever floats your boat.
 
 
 Asfor experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[blue_bungalo...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

--- punditster@... wrote :

It was intersting to see how Xeno tried to enable Barry, by leaving out of the 
discussion all the interesting stuff Barry believes in - like karma and 
reincarnation. 
 
 What happened - I thought you guys all read Sam Harris' book. Go figure.
 
 Xeno didn't even recognize the dissonance in Barry's preference for Bruce 
Cockburn songs. Everyone knows Cockburn is a born-again Christian. What about 
Barry's claim that a belief in God is a form of mental illness. 
 
 How does that work?

Nobody seems to want to talk about Barry's beliefs in reincarnation and 
levitation, for which there is no physical evidence. It looks like everyone is 
very interested in metaphysics, but not very interested in physics or logic. Go 
figure. 


This could explain how Winthrop and Albert worked on the 
non-weapon part, of an exclusively weapons project, in which 
one of them was denied security clearance.



 

--- punditster@... wrote : 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote :
 
 I think you hit on something here I never considered. Social interaction. I do 
not think there is any objective measure by which one considers such 
experiences valuable. There are certain things I like, certain things I do not, 
and I go for the ones I like. While I do not know why, those things I like I 
sometimes like to share with others. A piece of music, a movie. Why did you 
post about Bruce Cockburn's music, his book? I am not sure there is any 
reliable objective measure why one likes something other than a general 
propensity to avoid pain and to maintain comfort. Now if you recall Maharishi 
said the mind seeks a greater field of happiness. Because he was hawking TM, he 
skewed the concept to correspond with his metaphysic (the transcendental field, 
the unified field). You do not need a field. Basically I think it comes down to 
you like stuff, and don't like other stuff. The rationalisations come later. If 
there is any objective evidence for that previous sentence it might be split 
brain experiments. When one side of the brain of people with this condition are 
asked to explain why the other side of the body did something, it makes up an 
explanation. 
 
 
 Thewhole spiritual trip is a post hoc explanation fabricated to explain why 
something you like, in this case some kind of meditation for example, or the 
experience that is supposed to result from that, should be valuable to someone 
else. Spiritual endeavours are really quite a complex bother, all these things 
that one has to practice or think about, so to get someone to get involved in 
it really requires a real snow job. You have to bury them with advertising 
about how great things will be if they do this. You need an intellectual 
framework to explain why doing such atypical things will benefit. To get 
someone to come around to your ideas about what you like, it may not matter if 
it doesn't really work. You make up this because you are socially wired to a 
certain extent, and a successful social interaction results in feeling good. So 
there really is not much of a reason for saying such experiences as spiritual 
experiences are valuable, you hawk them that way, just as you would a certain 
artist, a good restaurant, a walk on a nice evening. Because social 
interactions are on an individual level, I would say the ego is involved, that 
level of personal identity that thinks it is running the show. The ego provides 
the explanations. From a scientific level, the experiments that indicate the 
brain comes to decisions often as far as 7 or 8 seconds prior to that decision 
comes into conscious awareness. That would mean you are not really in control 
of anything. Life goes on this and that way. Stuff happens, you think you do 
stuff. Hawking TM or hawking Bruce or hawking Hawking resuls in satisfaction. 
Whatever floats your boat.
 
 
 Asfor experiences of unboundedness, I really don't think of them that way any 
more. The spiritual trip is the strangest con in the universe. Suppose I put it 
this way: How would you like to be exactly the way you are for as long as you 
are? This is what I am offering you. It will take you about 40 or 50 years, and 
you will have to do all these different things, adopt crazy ideas, do 
exercises, sit quietly, eat special foods, take weird medicines. Want to jump 
in an try this out? In order to get people to do what you like, you have to be 
more devious in your enticements.
 
 
 Itall comes down to 'I like this, and I want you to like it too'. Psst, I have 
some secret stuff that other people do not know, and if you let me tell you, 
and you do what I say, you will be able to say every day 'I'm gonna help 
people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like 
me!






 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. My 
perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. Odd that those with a 
scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate non-scientific 
emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious on accepting 
such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess waking state 
is.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of how could we know?

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find 
out.

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

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

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

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

 There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 What makes you think that is non-physical?
 

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. 
 

 Astoundingly, scientists do get the occasional hug. How the brain generates 
subjective experience is the mystery not that it is a subjective metal 
experience that wouldn't be there without our brains and all their chemicals 
and electricity.
 

 My perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. 
 

 True, but he had some yagya's to sell you. And I don;t consider him much of an 
authority anyway simply because he pitched a non-sensical cosmology with no 
evidence to support it, and a lot of what he claimed is testable but seems to 
have failed. And a lot of it was wishful thinking and appeals to ancient 
authority. I give him top marks for optimism though.
 

 Odd that those with a scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate 
non-scientific emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious 
on accepting such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess 
waking state is.
 

 I don;t know how I make it through the day to be honest...
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of how could we know?

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find 
out.

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

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

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness. 


Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 

Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do 
it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some 
reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure.

This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com


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


From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

 
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and religious
historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 

Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into
line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do
it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some
reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure.

This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!


Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a duty to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be protecting, either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 
exclusively to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).  

Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the writers -- 
they don't like? Feeling the need to get the writers or smack them in 
several posts a day...for months, or even years...seems almost *by definition* 
insane to me. The lurking reporters 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

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

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






















Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 
 

 But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view 
what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and 
always started a Barry post with Note that Barry says so we knew we could 
safely scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't 
Bawee related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one 
day that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.
 

 Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.
 

 But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.
 
But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a duty to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be protecting, either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 
exclusively to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).  

Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the writers -- 
they don't like? Feeling the need to get the writers or smack them in 
several posts a day...for months, or even years...seems almost *by definition* 
insane to me. The lurking reporters have confirmed that they see Ann, Jim, 
Richard, and Steve this way, as cult apologists stalking critics of their cult. 
Why can't the stalkers themselves see it?

Maybe they are just lonely 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com



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



Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 

Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research material 
with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to doing lately. Wasn't 
it Judy herself who once defined stalking as follows: I might also point out 
that searching the Web for information to use against somebody is standard 
cyberstalking behavior. -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view what 
a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and always 
started a Barry post with Note that Barry says so we knew we could safely 
scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't Bawee 
related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one day 
that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.

I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be missing 
important information by merely scanning the Message View of their posts and 
skipping the rest. One would really have to be a cretin to NOT know what one of 
these people were going to say in their posts from the first couple of lines of 
them. It's not, after all, as if they have that much *range* in the things they 
say. With Ann, one appearance of bawee is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed 
her Hate Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up. 


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.

And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while *obviously* 
obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a little insane. 


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here,
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was 
told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. 
Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably 
thinks David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are 
enlightened, but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who actually 
*did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of such a person 
existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)

The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a duty to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say, but of course we all know
that the members of the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about 
why *they* were deranged stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to be protecting, either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, are you serious! 

 You completely miss the whole intent of Ann's comment.
 

 But, like I said, who cares.
 

 You point out what you feel is craziness, stupidity and obsession in other 
people, and they, (including me) do the same to you.
 

 You are no different than the people you criticize, with the exception that 
you make a point (regularly) that you are unattached to your opinions
 

 Welcome to FFL.
 

 80% of the content here are personal attacks, pointing out other people's 
flaws.
 

 And what you've written below is just the perfect example of it.
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Jesus, salyavin, I gotta tell you,  from what I know about you, and what I know 
about Ann,  count me in the Ann camp. 

 On the other hand, maybe there's just not a hell of a lot for you to hang your 
hat on.
 

 A lot of deep thinking perhaps, if that's what you want to call it.
 

 P.S. You really play that Judy card, way to often.
 

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

 
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

You never really began to debate.
 

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

 Xeno, 

 Thank you for your ideas.  I believe we've exhausted this debate.  There is no 
point to continue.
 

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

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :No

 Xeno, 

 You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated 
yesterday.  Earlier, you said that everything that exists has no cause.  Then 
you said that:
 

 As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that 
gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body 
were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The 
protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I 
certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old 
or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them.
 

 Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and 
a father. =No, I said my body had a mother and a father, that's different. You 
need to read more carefully.=  From my understanding, your parents are the 
cause of your existence on earth. =Your understanding and my understanding are 
different, I am consciousness and that includes the entire universe. To add a 
point, the physical universe is the equivalent of consciousness, they are not 
separate things. To say it another way the universe is pure being; that is all 
trivial because this is true for everyone whether they know it or not, whether 
they feel separate from the universe or not. If you studied Zen, you might call 
consciousness or awareness the unborn.= So, we have one specific example that 
proves your statement to be false. =Well that is not bad considering how many 
statement you have made that are out of whack. But you came to the conclusion 
by dropping out a critical word in my post, so you came to the wrong conclusion 
because you did not use the original phrase=. IOW, you are a physical entity 
that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have 
proved your statement to be illogical. =I regard the entire universe as a 
physical entity, by my reckoning I am 13.5 billion years old or so, but really 
I am just blank awareness and the rest of the stuff just fills things out a bit.
 

 Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true?   Because, like you, all 
human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth.  We are all 
physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this 
world. =But your parents had grandparents, strictly speaking your parents had a 
prior cause by this reasoning, you could just as well say your grandparents 
were your cause because they caused the environment responsible for your birth. 
And guess what? You grandparents had parents too, so really, your grandparents 
were not really the cause of your birth. If we go back far enough, we could 
find a host of segmented worms that were the progenitors that led to you, and 
further back, bacteria. Where do you draw the line at causes? You are making 
your parents an arbitrary stopping point for causes.=
 

 There are many other examples in the physical world that show everything that 
begins to exist has a cause.  But your parents are the clearest evidence that 
they caused you to exist.  Do you agree or not? =Strictly speaking I do not 
know directly that the people I grew up with were my parents or relatives, as I 
do not remember those physical details that far back. I was told certain humans 
were my parents. No one every told me I was adopted for example, but some 
foster parents do not reveal to their adopted child they were not their birth 
parents. It is certainly psossible in the absence of DNA evidence, those people 
were not my parents. But as I pointed out, parents are simply an arbitrary 
marker in a long long line of causes. The formation of the Sun and Earth out of 
supernova remenants would be one event in the long line of causes.=
 

 

 
 

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

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 9:49 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life 
of me can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, 
and She Whose Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. 
Uber-cultists, the whole lot of them.  :-)


I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, 
and depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at 
whom to spew their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies 
deprived of their fix.


Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does 
when someone dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of 
her revenge-stalking this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same 
troll he's always been, so no surprise there. There has really never 
*been* a time during his tenure on a.m.t. and FFL in which he was 
sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything approaching sanity 
from him now.


But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to 
take the money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of 
success, and then move out into the country, effectively cutting 
himself off from all human contact and causing him to make more and 
more and more of his lunatic rants. He probably gets up in the middle 
of the night and goes out to yell the same thing at the skunks on his 
property -- I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and you're NOT. 
So there!  :-)


I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet 
seen anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis 
respond point by point to this post. What do you think about what 
bawee has said here Curtis? Maybe by the time I have read everything 
up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you have done this already.


/Apparently Curtis does not want to talk about Barry's personal beliefs, 
such as a belief in Buddhas, karma, and reincarnation. Obviously Barry 
only wants to talk about personalities, not important questions such as 
does the universe have a beginning and is there an intelligent agent 
behind creation.


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events. Small minds 
just like to talk about people. Go figure./


/A belief in Buddhas is not a mental illness - it's just an opinion or a 
point of view. Unless Barry is experiencing cognitive dissonance.


//Apparently Barry did not read any of the messages posted by 
masked_zebra, so why would Barry be bringing this subject up again when 
everyone knows that Barry got his nose bloodied by Judy and Robin a few 
months ago on this same subject - St Thomas Aquinas and the prime mover 
or first cause.


Sometimes, it is difficult to reconcile a personal belief with logic, 
common sense or science. At times it's helpful to read a book, take a 
community college course, or consult with your friends about what you 
believe. Get another point of view from someone like Sam Harris. So, 
Harris is a neuroscientist and a Buddhist - that's interesting.


After reading Harris' books, you'd think that Barry could use some of 
that information to make an intelligent point about believing in 
reincarnation and karma. Go figure./


*'Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion**'*
by Sam Harris
Simon  Schuste
Amazon reviews:
http://tinyurl.com/q6wme6g

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 That's a nice piece Ann. 

 I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the real person behind 
people's online persona.
 

 I think you might be referring to Barry in some of what you say here.
 

 I've had a changing relationship with him.
 

 He thinks I've changed. I think he's changed.  
 

 Honestly.  I mean, really honestly.  I don't care.
 

 I still like him, although I think he is disappointed in me, and I in him, to 
some extent.
 

 But who the hell cares!
 

 FFL offers a pleasant back and forth (at least enough of the time), and a 
chance to hear different perspectives.
 

 I like Curtis' input because he will ask you in a genuine way, to justify your 
position on things, and ask you to share your opinion.
 

 Lord knows he is repeatedly asked to defend his position on issues.
 

 And it is important, to at some point, say, fair enough, I guess we see 
things differently and then move on.
 

 That has been easier to do, these last four, five, or six months. (however 
long its been)   (-:
 

 You know Steve, you have never failed to strike me as a kind man. I think I 
told you long ago that if I were to fall down on the sidewalk and hurt myself 
you'd be the first guy to rush over and help me (or anyone) up. And you still 
come across this way. You are quick to apologize, consistent in your viewpoints 
in a way that ends up appearing very genuine and honest, you seem to live a 
balanced and reasonably fulfilling life where you have children and a spouse 
that no doubt love you very much. It's great to have you on-board. Yours is a 
voice of reason, balance and humility.
 

 
 

 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, did you read the following paragraph? I regard it as a culturally spread 
malady that has its roots in our nervous system. I think it may be that, from 
an evolutionary viewpoint, a certain gullibility to pick up behaviours and 
ideas helps a child, and to a lesser extent adults, to quickly grasp useful 
information, but that tendency also has the defect of lack of discrimination, 
which is something that must be learned. Scientists, who supposedly have 
suppressed this tendency sometimes come up with crazy ideas which also do not 
work out, but eventually it is discovered these ideas are nuts. Religion makes 
it a proud and worthy stance to guard ideas that have failed to pass muster.  

 The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 
The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system. Because culture runs along the fault lines of this weakness, it is 
difficult to construct a civilisation that nurtures rational discrimination. 
Look at the difference between the founding fathers of the United States, who 
had rather sceptical and sparkling intellects, with the way the United States 
has turned out in practice. 
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Jesus, salyavin, I gotta tell you,  from what I know about you, and 
what I know about Ann,  count me in the Ann camp.



On the other hand, maybe there's just not a hell of a lot for you to 
hang your hat on.


A lot of deep thinking perhaps, if that's what you want to call it.

P.S. You really play that Judy card, way to often.


/You'd think that after the thrashing Judy gave Salya that he would keep 
the conversation on the impersonal level, but apparently he thinks she 
isn't coming back. Go figure.//

//
//Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a 
debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. The last resort, most 
difficult for the ego, is to consider that he or she might be wrong./





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




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

*From:* anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical 
wiring and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental 
illness is not considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the 
title Barry gave to this thread, the hook if you will, belief in god 
is not a mental illness.



Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is 
religion indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that 
the Inquisition considered holy), it is very, very much communcable 
(the Inquisition lasted for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in 
ways that are still felt today).


Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But 
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him 
into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has 
to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will 
be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure.


This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded 
with heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is 
their duty to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as 
if 1) she was entitled to, or 2) that ever happened.


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one 
that applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 You may very well be right Mac, because you tend to have a very insightful 
nature and I, more often than not, find your analyses extremely sophisticated. 
When I log on to FFL I always start at the bottom (oldest) post and read up 
answering certain posts as I go and moving past others. As I was quickly 
scrolling down from the top today I glimpsed some post from bawee who seems to 
address my personal post to Curtis. I haven't read it yet but I will, at least 
some of it. From the little I saw it appears rather unkind and very typical of 
bawee. Let's see what anyone does with this, if anything (although I see Steve 
made some remarks afterwards). I think you and Judy are on a similar page when 
it comes to Curtis but I don't always choose to deal with all the machinations 
that go on here so sometimes I simply find the parts of a person I enjoy or 
appreciate the most and speak to those. There are definite traits about Curtis 
that I admire (his music and his teaching) and as for whatever else might be 
going on I'm not in a position to try and change it. Whatever it is Curtis 
either sees or is using bawee for that is between them and is not somewhere I 
need to go.
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 6:47 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

*From:* salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
**
Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder,


/It looks like maybe Ann pushed one of Barry's buttons. LoL!/

I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they 
were in communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in 
fact the person who has been directing her stalking efforts from 
behind the scenes.


She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry 
hater - and you have to admire the gusto!


Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research 
material with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to 
doing lately. Wasn't it Judy herself who once defined stalking as 
follows: I might also point out that searching the Web for 
information to use against somebody is standard cyberstalking 
behavior. -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message 
view what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was 
considerate and always started a Barry post with Note that Barry 
says so we knew we could safely scroll past those. If Ann wants 
anyone to read anything that isn't Bawee related she should take up 
that technique or suffer the realisation one day that nobody real is 
reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.


I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be 
missing important information by merely scanning the Message View of 
their posts and skipping the rest. One would really have to be a 
cretin to NOT know what one of these people were going to say in their 
posts from the first couple of lines of them. It's not, after all, as 
if they have that much *range* in the things they say. With Ann, one 
appearance of bawee is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed her Hate 
Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up.


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let 
them get on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it 
is pointless.


And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while 
*obviously* obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a 
little insane.


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of 
it is crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My 
glass is clearly half-full.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)


It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that 
Nabby doesn't believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going 
on in there that doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.


What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who 
actually *did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of 
such a person existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)


The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a duty to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what they write. I don't read their posts, so they're not talking to 
me. even though they often pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers 
to reply to their stalker 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 Oh my God! Still irony challenged, I see. Did you really, really take this 
seriously? I'm sure Curtis got it but it went clean over your addled head. 
This is seriously funny, you actually thought I was not being ironic when I 
said this. Surely the my reward will be in heaven part was the giveaway?
 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)


On 10/22/2014 6:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote:



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is?


/Barry?/

Maybe there's an imaginary one that applauds every such post. That 
would be a sign of poor mental health!


/The applause is every time you respond to a post by Ann - that always 
indicates that she has pushed one of your buttons. LoL!//

//
//Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a 
debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. The last resort, most 
difficult for the ego, is to consider that he might be wrong./





Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed 
to know for sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would 
indicate that they were in communication, right? So my bet is that 
Ann's audience is in fact the person who has been directing her 
stalking efforts from behind the scenes.


She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry 
hater - and you have to admire the gusto!


But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message 
view what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was 
considerate and always started a Barry post with Note that Barry 
says so we knew we could safely scroll past those. If Ann wants 
anyone to read anything that isn't Bawee related she should take up 
that technique or suffer the realisation one day that nobody real is 
reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.


Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let 
them get on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it 
is pointless.


But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of 
it is crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My 
glass is clearly half-full.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)


It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that 
Nabby doesn't believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going 
on in there that doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.


The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a duty to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what they write. I don't read their posts, so they're not talking to 
me. even though they often pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers 
to reply to their stalker posts, so it would seem that they aren't 
really talking to these people they're claiming to be protecting, 
either. Thus it seems clear that they are either talking exclusively 
to each other (a strong psychopathic trait among similarly-insane 
inmates in asylums) or to themselves (an even more psychopathic trait).


Wouldn't it be much more sane just to IGNORE the writings -- and the 
writers -- they don't like? Feeling the need to get the writers or 
smack them in several posts a day...for months, or even 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!
 

 Sal, and here I thought you were a smart guy. Guess not. Puh-leeze, go look up 
some chemistry formula 'cause you certainly lack the ability to recognize 
satire when you see it. Leave the literary pursuits to those who have a sense 
of humour.






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be 
proven, by physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of 
the equation of life, life then makes less sense, and becomes less 
enjoyable. An example would be the love between a child, and its 
mother or father, or love between friends.


On 10/22/2014 1:46 AM, salyavin808 wrote:



What makes you think that is non-physical?


/We already went over this: according to Sam Harris, there is nothing in 
the physical world that would indicate that there is a human state of 
consciousness.

//
//If consciousness means self-consciousness then it cannot be 
identified by logic with the human body. Animals also possess a physical 
body, but not rational consciousness.  If consciousness is a property of 
the body, it must be perceived like other material properties. But 
consciousness is neither seen, smelt or tasted nor touched nor heard. 
Consciousness is private and cannot be shared by others - it is the very 
constructed character of knowing./




The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and 
chemicals, but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged 
anyone else.


Astoundingly, scientists do get the occasional hug. How the brain 
generates subjective experience is the mystery not that it is a 
subjective metal experience that wouldn't be there without our brains 
and all their chemicals and electricity.


My perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual 
physical manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a 
starting point.


I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a 
strictly material life, a function of lower consciousness.


True, but he had some yagya's to sell you. And I don;t consider him 
much of an authority anyway simply because he pitched a non-sensical 
cosmology with no evidence to support it, and a lot of what he claimed 
is testable but seems to have failed. And a lot of it was wishful 
thinking and appeals to ancient authority. I give him top marks for 
optimism though.


Odd that those with a scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and 
integrate non-scientific emotional responses into their lives, and yet 
be quite imperious on accepting such responses, as they consider them 
non-scientific. What a mess waking state is.


I don;t know how I make it through the day to be honest...

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :

Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and 
Madison. Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:



M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not 
sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, 
except to enhance the discussion of how could we know?


Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material.


M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent 
of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our 
sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, 
even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know 
all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give 
us all some humility about what is real.


But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical 
realm through internal experience have not made their case 
convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am 
dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am 
putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the 
mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by 
religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already 
over Let's find out.


The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? 
I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying 
these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to 
address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how 
fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our 
cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual 
mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.


Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts 
and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We 
don't have to swing 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 12:54 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


I enjoyed your response till you went its all about Barry on my ass 
Richard.




/So, you don't want to talk about Barry and Sam Harris and their belief 
in Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. Go figure./





I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity 
in gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the 
epistemological puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that 
the claim of consciousness as the ultimate reality was inferred from 
anything. I think someone taught you that this was true. I ain't 
necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from a self evident 
truth from experience.




/There's probably not a single person on the planet that hasn't 
*inferred* that they are a self-conscious thinking being and that they 
exist by virtue of being conscious - everyone knows the difference 
between a man that is alive and a man that is dead. It's the most 
obvious reality on the planet and dirt simple. The fact that you are 
conscious is self-evident from just being alive.//From this experience 
we *infer* that //consciousness is the ultimate reality, based on 
experience, and on sense perception, and on verbal testimony. It's not 
complicated.//

//
//Maybe it's time to review the valid means of knowledge://
//
//Sense perception//
//Verbal testimony//
//Inference/





And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is 
what gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to 
only what logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw 
in as many non sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up 
with. I'll take something new and tangential over more of the same any 
day.




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



Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.


/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that
for every event there is a cause. The question is if
everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause?
This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an
end would have to have a first cause or principle. His
argument for before and after must have an antecedent state
following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing.

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it
would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to
support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@...
mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:




M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded
assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he
did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions
instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we
conflate that's logical with that's true because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In
our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against
them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements
that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the
logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history
of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack
of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and
astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our
senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to
speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and
advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims
like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are
ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. 



/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a
reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they
don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost
everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human
experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity
sucks.//There are no chance events./



Turns out quantum events don't follow this 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry, what the hell are you saying?   

 Tell me it's not the same 'ol diatribe.
 

 Maybe I'll have time to read it later.
 

 How many posts have you written denigrating the place here, and it's 
participants, every hour, every day, letting us know what a waste of time it is 
for your to participate.
 

 That irony is lost on you.
 

 But, whatever...
 

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

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!






















Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From Hell 
folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for sure 
that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were in 
communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in fact the person 
who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a duty to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't really talking to these people they're claiming 
to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational thinking 
with sal. 

 go figger!
 

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

 
 

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

 
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 

It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps? 
 

 I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one that 
applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!
 

 Sal, and here I thought you were a smart guy. Guess not. Puh-leeze, go look up 
some chemistry formula 'cause you certainly lack the ability to recognize 
satire when you see it. Leave the literary pursuits to those who have a sense 
of humour.






 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but kindness is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was excellent.) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

okay, good goal Ann, but your normal style of functioning. 

 It's just when we see something that seems out of whack, we comment on it.
 

 To Barry that's being obsessed, or stalking.
 

 He, of course is beyond most, if not all, human foibles.  A model of 
unattachment.
 

 A button pusher on high.  Or at least that's what he says.
 

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

 
 

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

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but kindness is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was excellent.) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

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

 okay, good goal Ann, but your normal style of functioning. 

 It's just when we see something that seems out of whack, we comment on it.
 

 To Barry that's being obsessed, or stalking.
 

 He, of course is beyond most, if not all, human foibles.  A model of 
unattachment.
 

 A button pusher on high.  Or at least that's what he says.
 

 Steve, just keep being who you are. You're doing great. You're going to heaven 
for sure (this should get a few people going ;-))
 

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

 
 

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

 Ann, it appears that agreement with Barry, trumps any kind of rational 
thinking with sal. 

 go figger!
 

 Yes, but kindness is my goal today (although I always find it easy to be 
kind to my animals) so I will hold off commenting on this excellent insight of 
yours. (Oops, I think I did comment by saying it was excellent.) 
 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann, 

 I am sure you have noticed, this reading comprehension issue with Barry.
 

 The brain filia that are responsible for nuance, seem to have gotten 
flattened, or something.
 

 I mean, it is sort of funny, but sad too.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 
 

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

 From: anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

 

  
 
 
 
 As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness.


 

 Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is religion 
indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that the Inquisition 
considered holy), it is very, very much communcable (the Inquisition lasted 
for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in ways that are still felt today). 
 

 Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded with 
heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is their duty 
to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as if 1) she was entitled 
to, or 2) that ever happened. 

 

 Oh my God! Still irony challenged, I see. Did you really, really take this 
seriously? I'm sure Curtis got it but it went clean over your addled head. 
This is seriously funny, you actually thought I was not being ironic when I 
said this. Surely the my reward will be in heaven part was the giveaway?
 

 See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here you have a 
person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and obsession on one 
particular person she hates by claiming it's her religious duty to act like 
this. This religious fanatic not only admits to being a stalker, she 
*celebrates* it and hopes to end up in heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say 
that was pretty mentally ill, wouldn't you?  :-)  :-)  :-)

 

 








 


 

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

who did you say was channeling Judy, sal?
 

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

 From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
 
 Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers From 
Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed to know for 
sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would indicate that they were 
in communication, right? So my bet is that Ann's audience is in fact the 
person who has been directing her stalking efforts from behind the scenes. 

She certainly seems to have taken over the role of principle Barry hater - and 
you have to admire the gusto! 

Indeed. Even *Judy* never admitted to having read my book as research material 
with which to better stalk me the way Ann has admitted to doing lately. Wasn't 
it Judy herself who once defined stalking as follows: I might also point out 
that searching the Web for information to use against somebody is standard 
cyberstalking behavior. -- Judy Stein, FFL, 11 February 2013

 

 But I don't read any of it either, it's too easy to tell from message view 
what a post is going to be about with some people. Judy was considerate and 
always started a Barry post with Note that Barry says so we knew we could 
safely scroll past those. If Ann wants anyone to read anything that isn't 
Bawee related she should take up that technique or suffer the realisation one 
day that nobody real is reading what she obviously spends a lot of time typing.

I've really never understood those who feel that I or others might be missing 
important information by merely scanning the Message View of their posts and 
skipping the rest. One would really have to be a cretin to NOT know what one of 
these people were going to say in their posts from the first couple of lines of 
them. It's not, after all, as if they have that much *range* in the things they 
say. With Ann, one appearance of bawee is a guaranteed tipoff that she needed 
her Hate Fix for the day and that it's safe to skip the post in which she tried 
to shoot it up. 

 

 Sometimes you have to admit that you just don't like someone and let them get 
on with whatever it is they do. Continually going on about it is pointless.

And continuing to claim that she's not obsessing on me while *obviously* 
obsessing on me is not only pointless, but more than a little insane. 

 

 But I have similar feelings with TV, some people complain that most of it is 
crap but if it wasn't there'd be no time to do anything else! My glass is 
clearly half-full.
 
But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest that...uh...overestimating 
one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of mental illness. For example, several 
times now over the years I have asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all 
the issue of whether anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by 
simply ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly refused 
to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, as if the fact 
that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people he was told to stalk 
means that they actually believe his claim to be enlightened. Heck, even 
*Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is enlightened. Nabby probably thinks 
David Lynch and the occasional scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, 
but he doesn't think Jim is. Says a lot, right?  :-)

It's strangely comforting to know that there are some things that Nabby doesn't 
believe. It betrays a thought process of some sort going on in there that 
doesn't depend on youtube for confirmation. Good for him.

What, after all, would you or anyone else sane THINK of someone who actually 
*did* believe Jim's claims to be enlightened? The prospect of such a person 
existing is almost scarier than Jim existing.  :-)

The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these people -- at 
this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- seem to feel that they 
have not only the right but a duty to harass and stalk those on this forum 
they don't like. I suggest that what they're really trying to do is SILENCE 
these people they stalk, because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged 
stalkers *pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what these 
liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of the original 
Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* were deranged 
stalkers. 

I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve's 
sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to what they write. I 
don't read their posts, so they're not talking to me. even though they often 
pretend to be. Almost no one else bothers to reply to their stalker posts, so 
it would seem that they aren't 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/22/2014 5:36 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

*From:* salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com

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

*From:* anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical 
wiring and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental 
illness is not considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the 
title Barry gave to this thread, the hook if you will, belief in god 
is not a mental illness.



Many people disagree with this. These sociologists, psychologists, and 
religious historians believe that history shows us that not *only* is 
religion indistinguishable from mental illness (think the actions that 
the Inquisition considered holy), it is very, very much communcable 
(the Inquisition lasted for *800 years*, fucking up Western society in 
ways that are still felt today).


/Non sequitur. Barry sounds very afraid of dialoging about religion or 
spiritual paths. He's been on the inside of two religious groups, but he 
doesn't seem to want to talk about it. He won't even tell us about the 
secret tantra techniques or the secret mantras. Go figure.


Apparently he is a TB: True Believers tend to believe in absolutist 
terms (either l00% true or 100% false) and they can't tolerate 
situations in which://

//
// a. the truth is unknown//
// b. the truth is midway between extremes//
// c. simply unknowable//
// d. variants such as true some of the time, but at other times not 
true, or true for some people but not others./




Plus, look at how one person defined their religion just today: But 
let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him 
into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has 
to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will 
be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure.


This person clearly feels not only that they are going to be rewarded 
with heaven for stalking the person they've chosen to stalk, but it is 
their duty to stalk him, to smack him into line day after day, as 
if 1) she was entitled to, or 2) that ever happened.


See what I mean about religion being a form of mental illness? Here 
you have a person who chooses to excuse her stalking behavior and 
obsession on one particular person she hates by claiming it's her 
religious duty to act like this. This religious fanatic not only 
admits to being a stalker, she *celebrates* it and hopes to end up in 
heaven *for* being a stalker. I'd say that was pretty mentally ill, 
wouldn't you? :-)  :-)  :-)



It's seriously weird behaviour, channelling Judy perhaps?

I wonder who the intended audience is? Maybe there's an imaginary one 
that applauds every such post. That would be a sign of poor mental health!



Well, before I started moving Ann's messages to the Deranged Stalkers 
From Hell folder, I seem to remember her being the person who claimed 
to know for sure that nothing bad had happened to Judy. That would 
indicate that they were in communication, right? So my bet is that 
Ann's audience is in fact the person who has been directing her 
stalking efforts from behind the scenes.


But even if this isn't the case, I would suggest 
that...uh...overestimating one's audience IS, in fact, a sign of 
mental illness. For example, several times now over the years I have 
asked Jim Flanegin to settle once and for all the issue of whether 
anyone actually *believes* his claims to be enlightened by simply 
ASKING. All it would take is for him to post to FFL, asking those who 
*do* believe he's enlightened to reply and say so. He has steadfastly 
refused to do this, all while insinuating that he has friends here, 
as if the fact that they pat him on the back when he stalks the people 
he was told to stalk means that they actually believe his claim to be 
enlightened. Heck, even *Nabby* has never said he thinks Jim is 
enlightened. Nabby probably thinks David Lynch and the occasional 
scarecrow next to a crop circle are enlightened, but he doesn't think 
Jim is. Says a lot, right? :-)


The clear sign of poor mental health IMO is the fact that these 
people -- at this point, primarily Ann, Jim, Richard, and Steve -- 
seem to feel that they have not only the right but a duty to harass 
and stalk those on this forum they don't like. I suggest that what 
they're really trying to do is SILENCE these people they stalk, 
because *they* don't like what they say. The deranged stalkers 
*pretend* that they're doing this stalking for the good of the 
forum, or to protect those who might be taken in or misled by what 
these liars might say, but of course we all know that the members of 
the original Inquisition said exactly the same thing about why *they* 
were deranged stalkers.


I would suggest that the bottom line about Ann, Jim, Richard, and 
Steve's sanity is whether anyone is actually paying any attention to 
what 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 

I can live with that. But I don't see any difference in the end state that the 
induced insanity of religion creates and the end state that organic 
insanity creates. Either way, one is insane. Maybe it's a Buddhist 
thing...Buddhists aren't really concerned about HOW things got to be the way 
they are, only THAT they are the way they are, and how to make the best of 
that. 

The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous 
system. 

But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the 
first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

I've been around FFL a while, but don't post often as conversations quickly 
become too personal (I don't know folks by their given names)  - and although I 
can wade thru muck and mire, way too much bandwidth is used up on folks dealing 
with their own emotions.

and I can't figure out the forum software, an awkward and inefficient interface 
in my opinion.The older forum made more sense.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Hi, and thanks for that - Yeah, I just wanted to point out who is the hand, and 
who is the sock monkey, in that equation. Have a great day!
 

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

 
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 You may very well be right Mac, because you tend to have a very insightful 
nature and I, more often than not, find your analyses extremely sophisticated. 
When I log on to FFL I always start at the bottom (oldest) post and read up 
answering certain posts as I go and moving past others. As I was quickly 
scrolling down from the top today I glimpsed some post from bawee who seems to 
address my personal post to Curtis. I haven't read it yet but I will, at least 
some of it. From the little I saw it appears rather unkind and very typical of 
bawee. Let's see what anyone does with this, if anything (although I see Steve 
made some remarks afterwards). I think you and Judy are on a similar page when 
it comes to Curtis but I don't always choose to deal with all the machinations 
that go on here so sometimes I simply find the parts of a person I enjoy or 
appreciate the most and speak to those. There are definite traits about Curtis 
that I admire (his music and his teaching) and as for whatever else might be 
going on I'm not in a position to try and change it. Whatever it is Curtis 
either sees or is using bawee for that is between them and is not somewhere I 
need to go.
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, it occurs to me that the only thing we can know for sure is that 
awareness exists. And that's because we're aware. But maybe I'm over 
simplifying (-:
 

 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:02 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' 
pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   

  On 10/21/2014 12:07 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
  
     Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a 
little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris  (-:

 
 According to Sam Harris consciousness is the only thing that cannot be an 
illusion.
 
 
 Anyway, my questions are: 
  1. how do we know that we know?  
 
 We know that we exist because we are self-conscious. Without consciousness 
there would be no perception or perceiver.
 
 
 Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a 
haetera!
  
 
 Non sequitur. The fact of consciousness is dirt simple because everyone has 
it, otherwise they would be unconscious. Nobody that is conscious goes around 
saying they don't exist. Consciousness is the basic fact of life that cannot 
be doubted.- Sam harris
 
 
 2. what do we mean by knowing? 
 
 Knowing is having knowledge structured in consciousness; intelligence. 
 
 
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, 
perception could be faulty.
  
 
 If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is 
natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, 
which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the naive realist 
closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, 
at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, he 
even more baffled.
 
 
 Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song.  
   
 
 For past experiences, to be compared, they must be remembered. But memory 
often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing us again? Past 
experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The materialist thinks he 
sees directly back into an existing past which in reality has ceased to exist!
 
 This is called in philosophy an appeal to instruments and like the appeal to 
other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other persons, is a 
confession of failure. For it is a confession that apparently obvious objects 
are NOT self-evident.
 
 
 But here's my really favorite question, 
  3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? 
 
 It is worthwhile to be conscious because that way get to enjoy life and gain 
knowledge that will set us free. You should know the truth and the truth will 
set your free. There in knowledge higher than absolute knowledge.
 
 
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?
  
 
 There is only one single reality - pure consciousness - duality is an 
illusion. 
 
 
 
 
   On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
   
 
 M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an  amateur philosopher. But I am not sure 
philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to 
enhance the discussion of how could we know?
 
 Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:
 
 Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.
 
 M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble  matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some  humility about 
what is real.
 
 But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been  accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has  been We have it all figured out already over Let's find 
out.
 
 The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate, but doesn't let that deter a 
friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's games, and you, like the chimp, 
seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one the one hand, denying that I am 
enlightened, while finding enlightenment a bogus concept, to begin with. A Big 
Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 
years?? Better get started... :-) 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Just to be clear, at no time have I said I was in the highest state of human 
development. The way I learned it, according to Maharishi, was that 
enlightenment meant simply, normal, and everything continues from there, as it 
always has. Draw your own conclusions. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :

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

 I have no problem with your friendship with Ann - As she responded, she 
suspects some of what I said is accurate,

M: That would require her to believe that you know my feelings when reading 
posts or whether or not I even read posts between other people here. It would 
be equally bogus for her as it is for you who made this absurd claim. I was a 
bit disappointed when I read that.

 J: but doesn't let that deter a friendship with you. I don't play the chimp's 
games, and you, like the chimp, seem to have a difficult time reconciling, one 
the one hand, denying that I am enlightened, while finding enlightenment a 
bogus concept, to begin with. A Big Confusing Issue with you two. I recommend 
TM for both of you for awhile, say 50 years?? Better get started... :-)

M: Nothing confusing about those two things at all Jim. The more you insist you 
are in the highest state of human development the more glaring the contrast 
with what  and how you post here.   




 

  ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : 
 I'm sure Ann appreciates your straightening her out about me Jim. She was 
making the mistake of trusting her own impression, but now has the enlightened 
perspective from you on my dark motives and inner thoughts.

At first I wondered how you could know about my inner feelings or whether or 
not I even read posts between other posters, but then I remembered: Jim is in a 
superior state of mind and it made more sense. I was amazed that you nailed me 
on exploiting Barry's posts although I am still a bit unclear how this 
actually plays out in the, outside of Jim's enlightened head, world.

Thanks for clearing up any confusion about my dark motives, because for a 
second, I read your whole intention as acting out a kindergarten sandbox 
emotional level scene:NO, Ann is MY friend.
 

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

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

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

 
 

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

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
The human species lack of hard wiring makes us more flexible for learning; we 
do not go out and dig burrows and look for nuts in the forest everyday 
(usually), but it makes us susceptible to the mental equivalent of a viral 
attack. We here have all experienced the attack, and many here are still 
dancing to the virus's tune. This is why I called religion a memetic malady or 
disease. That is different from organic insanity. Religion is induced insanity. 

I can live with that. But I don't see any difference in the end state that the 
induced insanity of religion creates and the end state that organic 
insanity creates. Either way, one is insane. Maybe it's a Buddhist 
thing...Buddhists aren't really concerned
 about HOW things got to be the way they are, only THAT they are the way they 
are, and how to make the best of that. 

If you do not mind being surrounded by insane people I suppose that is OK. If 
you (or someone else probably) want to make a diagnosis and want to cure people 
of the malady, then a proper diagnosis is necessary as organic insanity and 
intractable, impacted belief systems would have a different treatment. Organic 
insanity may not be curable but certain forms might be ameliorated by drugs. 
With memetic insanity, you basically have to dismantle the patient's belief 
system while at the same time instilling a framework for rational thought. As 
we see here on FFL, this process does not work on the web, something more 
visceral is required, an environment where the beliefs and botched reasoning 
simply do not work at all and provide negative consequences if pursued. If that 
sounds suspiciously like brainwashing, it probably is, brainwashing to remove 
brainwashing.

The question for 'spiritually' oriented individuals would be, is there a way to 
construct a system that gives us these experiences of unboundedness that does 
not also wreak havoc with this gullibility weakness in the human nervous system.


But that would presuppose that there is an actual VALUE to these experiences 
of unboundedness. That has not been established, merely assumed by centuries 
of religious fanatics trying to convince others that its value trumps 
everything else. 

I would suggest going back to the starting point and, if you want to invent a 
better system, make a case for these types of experience having a value in the
 first place. Most religions have never tried to do this. They just make 
declarations like Maharishi did, along the lines of The purpose of life is to 
achieve these experiences of unboundedness, which then become dogma and are 
repeated and believed by successive generations of believers. But he never said 
WHY these experiences were supposedly worth achieving. 

Start now...what do YOU see as the VALUE of these experiences of 
unboundedness you speak of? If you can't establish that they *have* a value, 
then why do we need a system of *any* kind to achieve them?


Systems already exist, but they are inefficient and quirky, and at best we just 
stumble into them. If the value to the individual is great enough, they will 
find a way. What was of value to me though, might not be of value to another.

I have found these experiences valuable, but it has also been very interesting 
how they have ultimately played out for me. Sam Harris is also promoting those 
experiences in his new book Waking Up, a Guide to Spirituality without 
Religion. These experiences can be fantastic, one can get attached to having 
them but as to how they can be interpreted is another question. What you are 
told in a particular tradition might not be a particularly good way to describe 
them if they tend to reinforce an impacted belief system. My view, at the 
moment, is the nervous system is relieving itself of something, but it is 
difficult to tell just what that something is. I would say the interesting 
spiritual experiences are just artefacts of the system normalising itself, so 
they are not really of real import. If one is seeking heaven and trying to 
avoid hell, one is missing the point of the search, for the point is to 
discover the commonality of both, and avoid being sucked
 either way. For me as time went on such experiences tended to damp out, 
everything kind of flattened out, until one day on a walk there was this shift 
in which the world, as it always had been, was identical with what I had been 
seeking. 


It was a very low key experience, but seeking

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

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

 Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 

 

 Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...
 

 I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is 
classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how 
someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived 
intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who 
disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. 
 

 But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most 
puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt 
whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be 
a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. 
Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second 
biscuit.
 

 I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious 
types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult 
any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been 
slighted. The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why 
I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about 
quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? 
It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it 
or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the 
abuse comes from.
 

 But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find 
him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary 
possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me.
 From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   

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

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

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

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the rest 
of the world think about who just said this!


 

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

 Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, 
in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world 
they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born 
again christians, often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. 
 

 These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper 
middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a 
college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily 
talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, 
foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that 
which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. 
 

 So, being emotionally immature

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com



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


Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 


Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...

I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is classed 
as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how someone 
with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived intellectually 
at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who disagrees must be 
deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. 

But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most 
puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt 
whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be 
a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. 
Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second 
biscuit.

I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types 
don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any 
contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been 
slighted. 

Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has overcome the 
Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and they haven't. They're 
still terrified that if they express doubt of any kind, their imaginary friend 
God will smite them. Can't risk that. And they're more than a little pissed of 
that God has *not* smitten us, so they have to try to make up for him being a 
slacker and try to smite us themselves.  :-)

The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why I feel no 
emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about quantum 
tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? It's 
only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it or 
actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the abuse 
comes from.

I agree, especially in Jim's case. Let's face it...he is basically NOTHING 
without his story of being enlightened. Without that, he's just another guy 
who inherited a little money rather than earned it, quit his job, and moved out 
into the country, where now he's so lonely that the only people he ever gets to 
talk to are on the screen of his laptop. Or that exist in his imagination, like 
his imaginary friend God (or The Ghost Of Guru Dev). 

So naturally he *resents* that some of us live in cities where they have pubs 
and cafes full of real people, and at which we can sit and talk with these real 
people. 

I suspect that what he resents even more is that we can sit there and talk with 
these real people without having to invent made-up stories to impress them 
with. 

Jim feels that the only way he can get anyone to listen to him is to say, Hi, 
my name is Jim, and I am fully enlightened. We can just say, Hi, I'm Barry, 
or Hi, I'm Salyavin, or Hi, I'm Curtis, and that's ENOUGH. 


But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find 
him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary 
possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me.

Me, I don't really give a shit. I think I realized at age 15 that if someone 
could present me with absolute, irrefutable proof that a God existed, it 
wouldn't change my life in the slightest. 

That is still true, because I got over the Fear Of God belief that they tried 
to imprint me with back during my two weeks of Sunday School attendance. Jim 
and John never did, so they can't make the leap to living without an imaginary 
friend who is watching them at every moment to make sure they don't fuck up 
and he has to send them to everlasting torment in Hell. Some friend.  :-)




 From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness



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


I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.



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


This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my