RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists
Actually that phrasing is ambiguous when it comes to something that's only speculative. It can mean either that you don't believe it exists, or that if it did exist, you'd be opposed to it. In the case of the death penalty, we know it exists, so I don't believe in it can only mean I'm opposed to it. In the case of Maharishi's remark, I don't believe in reincarnation could mean one or the other, but because we know he does believe in reincarnation, it can only mean he's opposed to it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : There's no distinction. I don't believe in it in this context is just the same as saying I don't believe in the death penalty even as people are sentenced to death. And it's just the same as the Buddhist monks protesting reincarnation in the cartoon. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LEnglish5@... Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 1:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reformed Buddhists Reincarnation? I don't believe in it -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi He didn’t say that. He said he was “opposed” to it. Get the distinction? Means he believes in it, but wants people to get liberated so they won’t reincarnate.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: the re-invigoration of Buddhism is started!
It isn't a grudge, Barry, and it's hardly weird. There are quite a few of us here who feel exactly as he does about your behavior (as you may perhaps have noticed). It's not as if you'd turned over a new leaf since he left, is it, now? Nor is it as though you never attacked anybody except in response to some negative comment they'd made about you. Your tendency to project your own tendencies onto those you want to criticize is one of your most prounced narcissistic traits. Also, any of us could have predicted what you did, that Jim would return with a new handle after taking his new mobile home for a spin. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : After doing exactly what I predicted -- dropping out for a while and then coming back as the new Jim Flanegin under yet another pseudonym -- it takes him only slightly more than 17 hours to reboot his grudge and start attacking a person who didn't even comment on his return. Yes, as he says, people get off on the weirdest stuff. :-) From: fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 2:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: the re-invigoration of Buddhism is started! My personal view of turq, is that if this were a forum discussing tiddly-winks, he'd be in the thick of it. The subject doesn't matter - it is his opposition to it, and his ability to criticize those supportive of it, that is important to him. Some people get off on the weirdest stuff, and he is no exception. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : True. Some fellows met Maharishi on his plane in Bangkok before they went out to teach. Maharishi told them: Give Buddha back to Thailand. Seems this is what is happening since more and more groups of Buddhist monks and schools are starting real meditation, gone are the days of endless straining. Much to the consternation of the hobby Buddhist's in this group of course. Take the Turq; much of his fruitless attacks on TM here is probably fuelled by the success of TM in South-East Asia. The other guy is generally challenged and has probably not even noticed :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Buddhism will become effective again, as all the worlds religions will. Jai Jai Jai Maharishi! Asoka Mission - Buddhist School For Girls In Thailand http://www.asokamission.com/app/index.php?r=front/default/pagealias=buddhist-school-for-girls-in-thailand# http://www.asokamission.com/app/index.php?r=front/default/pagealias=buddhist-school-for-girls-in-thailand# Asoka Mission - Buddhist School For Girls In Thailand Something special is happening in Thailand. Over 400 girls are blossoming like beautiful lotuses at the Dhammajarinee Witthaya School -- the first Buddhist... View on www.asokamission.com http://www.asokamission.com/app/index.php?r=front/default/pagealias=buddhist-school-for-girls-in-thailand# Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
Heaven forfend that Barry should read the article at the link I posted, which reports on a recent Gallup survey showing that large majorities of Americans are in favor of various approaches to gun control. What Americans have is a political problem in which minorities and special interest groups like the NRA are able to block the majority's strong preference for gun control. That's ultimately also a people problem in that we let things get to this infuriating state of affairs. But it's not a people problem in terms of everyone wanting guns to be uncontrolled, as Barry seems to believe. Americans really *do* have a people problem that is larger than its gun problem
[FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
Right, America is overwhelmingly against any form of gun control. Oh, wait... http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Recently I've seen more and more news articles about smart guns, which can be personalized such that they can only be fired by their owners or someone pre-authorized by them. Ah, I said to myself, this may help in the attempts to wake America up to the need for some kind of effective gun control. Imagine my shock at my own naivete when I read this excellent article, and learned how the gun industry and the NRA are already in cahoots -- long before an effective smart gun ever appears on the market -- to co-opt the technology to eliminate current gun laws and turn America into the carry your gun anytime, and anywhere nation they fantasize about in their wet dreams. If this is how America reacts to a rare sane idea in the gun control battle, I almost hope the members of the NRA succeed in their quest, and turn the country into the Everyone-Armed-At-All-Times-Free-For-All Disneyland they hope for. Then possibly they'd all shoot each other and the world would finally be a saner place. Pando at the NRA: The Zuckerberg of guns could save lives and make millions, but he'll have to fight the NRA first http://pando.com/2014/05/07/the-zuckerberg-of-guns-could-save-lives-and-make-millions-for-the-industry-but-hell-have-to-fight-the-nra-first/ Pando at the NRA: The Zuckerberg of guns could... I flew in to Indianapolis on Friday morning, sleep deprived and dispirited after spending a red-eye flight stuck next to a guy with foul breath who passed ou... View on pando.com http://pando.com/2014/05/07/the-zuckerberg-of-guns-could-save-lives-and-make-millions-for-the-industry-but-hell-have-to-fight-the-nra-first/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
And I'm back to America has a political problem, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun controls. Obviously that political problem has an impact on many other situations besides gun control. But the point is that if the majority could get its way, gun safety would be significantly improved, and some of the awful statistics would be reduced. So I'm back to America has a people problem.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
America also has a very different history from the Netherlands, one in which guns of necessity played a major role. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Not really my conversation, but I thought it was also mentioned that diversity plays a factor. Holland is probably more homogeneous in terms of population make up, and probably has a higher per capita income than the places in the US where there is more gun violence.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : And I'm back to America has a political problem, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun controls. Obviously that political problem has an impact on many other situations besides gun control. But the point is that if the majority could get its way, gun safety would be significantly improved, and some of the awful statistics would be reduced. C: With 80% of homicides in our cities being gang related I am not sure even gun laws can touch this issue. DC has the strictest laws against gun ownership and is 8th in homicide rate. The most vocal people for guns are not the ones shooting each other with them. Can you really think of a gun law that would stop criminals from using them to defend their turf? I don't think I said anything to that effect. However, Obama's Now Is the Time proposals include many things that could be done to reduce gun violence, including increased mental health care spending: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf So for me the issue is education and dealing with poverty. If you look at a map of where DC homicides are, it is a map of our poorest residents. People living in a horribly broken social system, with a society that has artificially inflated the value of drugs through prohibition, ends up with gang driven murder rates like we have. Amsterdam does not have this toxic mix. So I'm back to America has a people problem.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
I'll confirm this from my experience when I lived in NYC. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You are extrapolating for about two hundred million of us (urban dwellers). There is no constant low level fear here. As usual, I don't know anyone who thinks the way you assume they do. My daughter lives in a big city, and goes drinking with her buddies in sketchy neighborhoods, sometimes - no low level fear, there. I blew a tire in the evening in Philadelphia, and pulled off the freeway, into their worst slums. Just changed the tire and got going again. And please don't tell me you won't get mugged in some parts of Paris, as easily as you would in DC. You make Europe out to be some kind of wonderland, but just like your meditation beliefs, something else has to suffer, as a result. The world is not some zero sum game, dude, so that if you discover something cool, someone, someplace, or something else has to lose, as a consequence. It doesn't work that way. All these imaginary people that you accuse of being small minded? A fantasy. All the 'cult behavior' that you enjoy studying here? Imaginary. These are just games you must play with your ego, to feel better about yourself. Are you capable of enjoying someone, something, or someplace, simply for its own sake, and not only because you perceive it to be somehow 'better'? That's a question you need to ask yourself. It would improve your writing, too, if you ever got past it. You're welcome.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
Comment below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : And I'm back to America has a political problem, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun controls. Obviously that political problem has an impact on many other situations besides gun control. But the point is that if the majority could get its way, gun safety would be significantly improved, and some of the awful statistics would be reduced. C: With 80% of homicides in our cities being gang related I am not sure even gun laws can touch this issue. DC has the strictest laws against gun ownership and is 8th in homicide rate. The most vocal people for guns are not the ones shooting each other with them. Can you really think of a gun law that would stop criminals from using them to defend their turf? J: I don't think I said anything to that effect. c: Linking gun control to reducing the awful statistics was to that effect. Well, no, Curtis, reducing the statistics is not to the effect of stopping criminals from using guns. I don't choose my words at random, and I don't appreciate your changing them and trying to stuff them back into my mouth. End of conversation. J:However, Obama's Now Is the Time proposals include many things that could be done to reduce gun violence, including increased mental health care spending: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf C: I am all for more mental health spending but again, the most gun violence is between gang members fighting over turf. His other proposals are all political theater to make it seem like he is doing something. Making it harder for criminals to get guns the easy way will just drive up the price and appeal for people who sell them the harder more profitable way. Improving school safety is a joke and more theater. No one can stop the kind of determined kids who have done the worst damage. I go in and out of schools every day and there is no way short of prison lockdown to even improve an inch on that. And prisons aren't exactly violence free either. The laws against gun clips and certain kinds of guns is more misplaced misdirection. The kind of gun you need to shoot a deer humanly can be just as effective and you will never get controls on those. This law is for people who don't know much about guns and think there are big differences. What talking about these measures HAS accomplished is that sales of assault rifles and large round clips went through the roof. So now that ship has sailed and there are more big clips and assault rifles on the street than ever in history. Unintended consequences of gun control laws. So for me the issue is education and dealing with poverty. If you look at a map of where DC homicides are, it is a map of our poorest residents. People living in a horribly broken social system, with a society that has artificially inflated the value of drugs through prohibition, ends up with gang driven murder rates like we have. Amsterdam does not have this toxic mix. So I'm back to America has a people problem.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
I'm sick of your debating tactics, Curtis. Your response here is just more of same. I shouldn't have stuck with our theism discussion as long as I did. From now on, when you begin hauling out the old tricks, I'm gone. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comment below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : And I'm back to America has a political problem, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun controls. Obviously that political problem has an impact on many other situations besides gun control. But the point is that if the majority could get its way, gun safety would be significantly improved, and some of the awful statistics would be reduced. C: With 80% of homicides in our cities being gang related I am not sure even gun laws can touch this issue. DC has the strictest laws against gun ownership and is 8th in homicide rate. The most vocal people for guns are not the ones shooting each other with them. Can you really think of a gun law that would stop criminals from using them to defend their turf? J: I don't think I said anything to that effect. c: Linking gun control to reducing the awful statistics was to that effect. Well, no, Curtis, reducing the statistics is not to the effect of stopping criminals from using guns. I don't choose my words at random, and I don't appreciate your changing them and trying to stuff them back into my mouth. c: Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to reducing people shooting each other which is dominated by criminals. Now that you have clarified that you are reducing the 'statistics I get your point completely. If we had laws that reduced people taking statistics you would have a valid point. I wasn't stuffing any words into your mouth I was drawing out the implications of what you were saying as it applies to the world as I see it in a ...you know... like an online discussion where two people are looking at different areas of a complex problem. J:End of conversation. C: Always so huffy! What's up with that? J:However, Obama's Now Is the Time proposals include many things that could be done to reduce gun violence, including increased mental health care spending: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf C: I am all for more mental health spending but again, the most gun violence is between gang members fighting over turf. His other proposals are all political theater to make it seem like he is doing something. Making it harder for criminals to get guns the easy way will just drive up the price and appeal for people who sell them the harder more profitable way. Improving school safety is a joke and more theater. No one can stop the kind of determined kids who have done the worst damage. I go in and out of schools every day and there is no way short of prison lockdown to even improve an inch on that. And prisons aren't exactly violence free either. The laws against gun clips and certain kinds of guns is more misplaced misdirection. The kind of gun you need to shoot a deer humanly can be just as effective and you will never get controls on those. This law is for people who don't know much about guns and think there are big differences. What talking about these measures HAS accomplished is that sales of assault rifles and large round clips went through the roof. So now that ship has sailed and there are more big clips and assault rifles on the street than ever in history. Unintended consequences of gun control laws. So for me the issue is education and dealing with poverty. If you look at a map of where DC homicides are, it is a map of our poorest residents. People living in a horribly broken social system, with a society that has artificially inflated the value of drugs through prohibition, ends up with gang driven murder rates like we have. Amsterdam does not have this toxic mix. So I'm back to America has a people problem.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: It turns out that America is more insane than I thought
Sure didn't take long for the old Curtis to surface. But I'm not playing any more, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : J: I'm sick of your debating tactics, Curtis. Your response here is just more of same. C: Your content free personal accusation retort while framing a discussion with different POVs as a debate. Odd perspective that. J: I shouldn't have stuck with our theism discussion as long as I did. C: Interesting revelation. You resent the fact that I couched the discussion so that your usual unpleasantness would be too obvious and predicted, so you had to act more civilly. It really rankled you didn't it? J: From now on, when you begin hauling out the old tricks, I'm gone. C: Yes huffy is the perfect word. The stock and trade of the high maintenance person. Ms. Huffenpuff, so much drama for an online conversation. I suspect you are used to people reacting to your escalating unpleasantness routine by backing down because you are too much trouble for them to deal with. So you can live in a bubble of thinking you are always right. Too bad for you that your routine amuses me. Huff and puff! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comment below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : And I'm back to America has a political problem, given that the overwhelming majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun controls. Obviously that political problem has an impact on many other situations besides gun control. But the point is that if the majority could get its way, gun safety would be significantly improved, and some of the awful statistics would be reduced. C: With 80% of homicides in our cities being gang related I am not sure even gun laws can touch this issue. DC has the strictest laws against gun ownership and is 8th in homicide rate. The most vocal people for guns are not the ones shooting each other with them. Can you really think of a gun law that would stop criminals from using them to defend their turf? J: I don't think I said anything to that effect. c: Linking gun control to reducing the awful statistics was to that effect. Well, no, Curtis, reducing the statistics is not to the effect of stopping criminals from using guns. I don't choose my words at random, and I don't appreciate your changing them and trying to stuff them back into my mouth. c: Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to reducing people shooting each other which is dominated by criminals. Now that you have clarified that you are reducing the 'statistics I get your point completely. If we had laws that reduced people taking statistics you would have a valid point. I wasn't stuffing any words into your mouth I was drawing out the implications of what you were saying as it applies to the world as I see it in a ...you know... like an online discussion where two people are looking at different areas of a complex problem. J:End of conversation. C: Always so huffy! What's up with that? J:However, Obama's Now Is the Time proposals include many things that could be done to reduce gun violence, including increased mental health care spending: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf C: I am all for more mental health spending but again, the most gun violence is between gang members fighting over turf. His other proposals are all political theater to make it seem like he is doing something. Making it harder for criminals to get guns the easy way will just drive up the price and appeal for people who sell them the harder more profitable way. Improving school safety is a joke and more theater. No one can stop the kind of determined kids who have done the worst damage. I go in and out of schools every day and there is no way short of prison lockdown to even improve an inch on that. And prisons aren't exactly violence free either. The laws against gun clips and certain kinds of guns is more misplaced misdirection. The kind of gun you need to shoot a deer humanly can be just as effective and you will never get controls on those. This law is for people who don't know much about guns and think there are big differences. What talking about these measures HAS accomplished is that sales of assault rifles and large round clips went through the roof. So now that ship has sailed and there are more big
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Who says they have to? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Why? Because they can't let go of the idea that God doesn't exist. What do you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Let me try that again. Who says they have to let go of the idea that there is no God in order to transcend? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Judy, Nobody says they have to. And that's precisely why they can't transcend. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Who says they have to? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Why? Because they can't let go of the idea that God doesn't exist. What do you think?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Comments below... I should also point out that you seem intent to portray anyone who *doesn't* believe in a God as lesser and on some lower plane of existence. Sorta like you portray anyone who DOES believe in a God. snips My continuing experiences of what he called transcendence and that I more accurately call samadhi Actually Maharishi called it samadhi as well. I also point out that you have fallen into the hater trap of wanting to define any atheist who claims to have had enlightenment experiences as a liar, or as deluded. Again, sorta like you consider theists to be delusional. Finally, if I were you I'd notice that even two of the biggest TM supporters/apologists on this forum -- Lawson and Judy -- are agin' you on this one. I don't even know what he's talking about. Maybe I'd be agin him if I did, but I can't be sure. It's conceivable to me that he has some kind of point and just hasn't explained it clearly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Uh oh...Nabby is gonna freak right out :-)
Nabs is a fan of Buddha, just not of Buddhists who don't practice TM. Opsie! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From an interview with David Lynch: David Lynch’s Heart Opened When… The director spoke of two times when he was shaken to his core. One was when he first saw Francis Bacon’s work at the Marlborough Gallery in 1966, and the other was at LACMA a couple of decades ago. He’d gone to see sandstone sculptures from the Far East and wandered by himself into a room with a Buddha from India. He spoke of his gaze falling on the face of the Buddha and seeing a “white light that shot out and filled [him] with bliss.” Long (one hour) interview with Lynch, for those who feel they could endure that much of him: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/09/the_brilliant_twisted_mind_behind_twin_peaks_david_lynch_reveals_where_his_ideas_originate/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/09/the_brilliant_twisted_mind_behind_twin_peaks_david_lynch_reveals_where_his_ideas_originate/ Supposed highlights from the interview, distilled by someone who listened to it so we don't have to. :-) http://www.bkmag.com/2014/04/30/david-lynch-loves-kanye-west-and-other-things-i-learned-at-bam-last-night/ http://www.bkmag.com/2014/04/30/david-lynch-loves-kanye-west-and-other-things-i-learned-at-bam-last-night/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation within. Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was saying the Kingdom of God was within the Pharisees. Most translations other than the KJV have among or in the midst of or similar, referring to the Pharisees' inability to recognize Jesus as the representative of God's Kingdom. Organized religions don't talk much about transcending simply because they lack the methods to achieve it. The Kingdom of God is within must the most revolutionary concept in Christianity yet is rarely or even never discussed out of fear the Church would loose it's grip on the people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
P.S.: The complete sentence is, The Kingdom of God is within/among/in the midst of you--you meaning the Pharisees. You can't leave off the you without seriously misrepresenting what Jesus was saying. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation within. Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was saying the Kingdom of God was within the Pharisees. Most translations other than the KJV have among or in the midst of or similar, referring to the Pharisees' inability to recognize Jesus as the representative of God's Kingdom. Organized religions don't talk much about transcending simply because they lack the methods to achieve it. The Kingdom of God is within must the most revolutionary concept in Christianity yet is rarely or even never discussed out of fear the Church would loose it's grip on the people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Nope. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you (Luke 12:31). Matthew has Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness... (6:33). Again, Nabby, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, who he thought were spiritually corrupt and incapable of entering the Kingdom of God. Within only works if you wrench the verse out of context. His whole point was that he, Jesus, represented the Kingdom of God, and the Pharisees were so spiritually blind they couldn't recognize him as such even though he was in the midst of or among them, right in front of their very eyes, talking to them. If you want to make a threat to the Church case, fine, but you can't legitimately use that verse to do it. Maharishi meant well, but he was no Bible scholar, and he goofed badly on that one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Isn't it in Lukas somewhere it says Seek yea first the kingdom of heaven within.. ? Among turned up in newer translations probably because the within was confusing since they have no idea what that is supposed to be. Also, someone who sought within would be a threat to the Church knowing he would not find a way to it in their teachings. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: The complete sentence is, The Kingdom of God is within/among/in the midst of you--you meaning the Pharisees. You can't leave off the you without seriously misrepresenting what Jesus was saying. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation within. Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was saying the Kingdom of God was within the Pharisees. Most translations other than the KJV have among or in the midst of or similar, referring to the Pharisees' inability to recognize Jesus as the representative of God's Kingdom. Organized religions don't talk much about transcending simply because they lack the methods to achieve it. The Kingdom of God is within must the most revolutionary concept in Christianity yet is rarely or even never discussed out of fear the Church would loose it's grip on the people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
But believe it or not, there is an Atheism for Dummies book. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I think it could be a great title for a book, Atheists Can't Transcend Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a book in the series along the lines of Transcending for Dummies
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Sure. And for all we know, similar sayings of Jesus to those in the Gospel of Thomas may have been redacted from the canonical Gospels. But in this case, he had a very specific point to make to the Pharisees about his identity and their inability to see him for who he was. He wasn't saying Look within, he was saying You're missing what's right in front of your nose. Most likely a very different context from what he said in the Gospel of Thomas. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : More esoteric/gnostic early Christian writings such as the Gospel of Thomas are far more clear in their mystical phrasing concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, though, of course, they aren't considered canon by any modern form of Christianity. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: The complete sentence is, The Kingdom of God is within/among/in the midst of you--you meaning the Pharisees. You can't leave off the you without seriously misrepresenting what Jesus was saying. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation within. Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was saying the Kingdom of God was within the Pharisees. Most translations other than the KJV have among or in the midst of or similar, referring to the Pharisees' inability to recognize Jesus as the representative of God's Kingdom. Organized religions don't talk much about transcending simply because they lack the methods to achieve it. The Kingdom of God is within must the most revolutionary concept in Christianity yet is rarely or even never discussed out of fear the Church would loose it's grip on the people.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Hmm, I always did wonder where Jesus learned English. Oh, Barry, you tiddlywink. I just want to hang you up by the collar of your little sailor suit and pinch those chubby pink cheeks. (No kidding, folks, Barry's said a lot of unbelievably stupid things here, especially recently. But this takes the cake.) Of course nobody knows what Jesus actually said, much less the definitive interpretation thereof. Nabby and I were talking about what's in the Bible. Just as one can discuss what Hamlet really meant in Shakespeare's play, one can discuss what Jesus really meant according to the writers of the Gospels. As it happens, my interpretation is that of most scholars and translators these days, and I was explaining to Nabby how that interpretation fits the context while Maharishi's doesn't. I think what's got your panties in a twist is the cognitive dissonance you felt when you saw me telling Nabby Maharishi was no Bible scholar and had made a bad mistake with his interpretation. If you have a good case to make for why The Kingdom of God is within you is more likely what Jesus meant in the Gospels than The Kingdom of God is among you, I'm all ears. Nabby would surely be pleased if you were able to support Maharishi's interpretation. We'll wait... Or are you possibly doing what The Corrector has done lately, and projecting what *you* want to believe onto someone you consider an authority. She feels safe with claiming to know the definitive interpretation of Jesus' words, based solely on having read translations of what he is *reputed* to have said, written down by other people.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
You know, I missed this part: If you cannot, please explain to us why we shouldn't consider them mere examples of spiritual bigotry and hatred, spouted by someone anxious to impose his notions of an Old Testament God onto Maharishi's notions of Being and overwrite them...replace them with a vengeful, neurotic God who is willing (and able) to deny experience of Him to anyone who does not believe as he or she should. Nowhere did John say anything even remotely to this effect. This vengeful, neurotic God comes straight from Barry's imagination. It's actually Barry who is anxious to impose his notions of God onto John. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, since you persist in this somewhat presumptuous folly, I'd like you to *document* why you believe it, and believe that *your* version of who can transcend and who cannot seems to differ from Maharishi's. Please find and post for us quotes from him that say what you claim, that only those who believe in God can transcend. I seem to remember many lectures and writings in which he stated the opposite, that every human being can transcend. I remember in particular lectures in which he was asked whether people of very low IQ or suffering from brain damage could transcend, and he answered with an unequivocal Of course. Anyone who can think can transcend. I don't seem to remember very many quotes in which he added, Everyone can transcend...EXCEPT those who don't believe in God. It seems that you have found these quotes, so please share them with us. Or are you possibly doing what The Corrector has done lately, and projecting what *you* want to believe onto someone you consider an authority. She feels safe with claiming to know the definitive interpretation of Jesus' words, based solely on having read translations of what he is *reputed* to have said, written down by other people. You seem equally comfortable supplying this missing phrase to complete the teachings of someone who actually wrote his *own* teachings down. Please share the source of your insights with us. If you cannot, please explain to us why we shouldn't consider them mere examples of spiritual bigotry and hatred, spouted by someone anxious to impose his notions of an Old Testament God onto Maharishi's notions of Being and overwrite them...replace them with a vengeful, neurotic God who is willing (and able) to deny experience of Him to anyone who does not believe as he or she should. Me, I just think you got your buttons pushed by a few people honestly stating an opinion about the non-existence of an imaginary being you have heavily invested in, and are trying to find some way to lash out at these heretics. In your mind, you have found find ways to deny them both the ability to transcend, and the ability to become enlightened. You seem unaware that doing so forces you to contradict the person you claim to hold as your spiritual teacher, and enlightened himself. I'd like to see you find direct quotes from this teacher (Maharishi) that support your theory. If you cannot, I reserve the right to consider you Just Another Spiritual Bigot, and a rather stupid one at that. We'll wait. You're a rude and ignorant fuck-up Bawee. Why don't you just shut up and butt out and let civilized people engage in an intelligent and progressive exchange of ideas. John is one of the more non-reactive and polite posters here. It's great to see him engage on a subject that this forum seems to have been set up investigate - actual exchanges about transcendence and spiritual or deeper life experiences. You are just some snarly old poop who just has to burp in anyone's direction who has an opinion different from your own. Take your shitty attitude somewhere else or go have another beer. Either way, you add nothing of relevance or interest to either this conversation or any subject that extends in depth beyond what you can tell us CBS has for its Fall TV lineup.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current
Who thinks of lucid dreaming as mystical or spiritual? I don't think I've ever heard that one before. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Another fascinating article presenting a different way of looking at experiences that many would call mystical or spiritual. To a scientist -- or to a non-dogmatist -- they're just experiences. Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electrical Current http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electric... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 The findings are the first to show that inducing brain waves of a specific frequency produces lucid dreaming. View on www.businessinside... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Are 'visions of God' really just temporal lobe epilepsy?
Barry just hates it when people laugh at his button-pushing attempts. That's why he snipped this from his quote of Ann's post: He was posting this to imply that visionaries or those who have had spiritual or revelatory experiences were most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he was frothing at the mouth and writhing while witnessing Rama levitate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : hey turq and Ann, yes, this is a wonderful article, if a bit biased. I like the point at the end that only Joan of Arc could of rallied the French. And it seems that Dostoevsky still could write acclimed novels which probably have enriched the lives of some people. So...regardless of the neurological event and regardless of how it is labeled, such events don't preclude that a person lives a beneficial life. I don't think there was ever any question of how beneficial someones life is or isn't based on whether they have visions based on epilepsy or not. I think what Bawee was doing here was his usual let's-see-if-I-can-push-any-buttons-here shtick. If so, what does it say about YOU that you got your buttons pushed yet again? :-) :-) :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current
My understanding has been that witnessing dreams is just that, witnessing them, not trying to change what's happening in them. No? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current Who thinks of lucid dreaming as mystical or spiritual? I don't think I've ever heard that one before. A lot of spiritual folks think of it that way. First reference to it I heard was in Carlos Casteneda’s books. Often discussed in talks at the Science and Non-Duality conference. MUM professor Charles Alexander (now deceased) did some research on it. It may be associated with witnessing sleep. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Another fascinating article presenting a different way of looking at experiences that many would call mystical or spiritual. To a scientist -- or to a non-dogmatist -- they're just experiences. Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electrical Current http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electric... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 The findings are the first to show that inducing brain waves of a specific frequency produces lucid dreaming. View on www.businessinside... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Ann has had Barry's number virtually from the beginning of her time here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Ann, Well said. You're a very intelligent woman. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John, since you persist in this somewhat presumptuous folly, I'd like you to *document* why you believe it, and believe that *your* version of who can transcend and who cannot seems to differ from Maharishi's. Please find and post for us quotes from him that say what you claim, that only those who believe in God can transcend. I seem to remember many lectures and writings in which he stated the opposite, that every human being can transcend. I remember in particular lectures in which he was asked whether people of very low IQ or suffering from brain damage could transcend, and he answered with an unequivocal Of course. Anyone who can think can transcend. I don't seem to remember very many quotes in which he added, Everyone can transcend...EXCEPT those who don't believe in God. It seems that you have found these quotes, so please share them with us. Or are you possibly doing what The Corrector has done lately, and projecting what *you* want to believe onto someone you consider an authority. She feels safe with claiming to know the definitive interpretation of Jesus' words, based solely on having read translations of what he is *reputed* to have said, written down by other people. You seem equally comfortable supplying this missing phrase to complete the teachings of someone who actually wrote his *own* teachings down. Please share the source of your insights with us. If you cannot, please explain to us why we shouldn't consider them mere examples of spiritual bigotry and hatred, spouted by someone anxious to impose his notions of an Old Testament God onto Maharishi's notions of Being and overwrite them...replace them with a vengeful, neurotic God who is willing (and able) to deny experience of Him to anyone who does not believe as he or she should. Me, I just think you got your buttons pushed by a few people honestly stating an opinion about the non-existence of an imaginary being you have heavily invested in, and are trying to find some way to lash out at these heretics. In your mind, you have found find ways to deny them both the ability to transcend, and the ability to become enlightened. You seem unaware that doing so forces you to contradict the person you claim to hold as your spiritual teacher, and enlightened himself. I'd like to see you find direct quotes from this teacher (Maharishi) that support your theory. If you cannot, I reserve the right to consider you Just Another Spiritual Bigot, and a rather stupid one at that. We'll wait. You're a rude and ignorant fuck-up Bawee. Why don't you just shut up and butt out and let civilized people engage in an intelligent and progressive exchange of ideas. John is one of the more non-reactive and polite posters here. It's great to see him engage on a subject that this forum seems to have been set up investigate - actual exchanges about transcendence and spiritual or deeper life experiences. You are just some snarly old poop who just has to burp in anyone's direction who has an opinion different from your own. Take your shitty attitude somewhere else or go have another beer. Either way, you add nothing of relevance or interest to either this conversation or any subject that extends in depth beyond what you can tell us CBS has for its Fall TV lineup.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current
Be interesting to compare EEG measurements of lucid dreaming vs. witnessing dreams, see if they're similar or distinct. I've witnessed dreams, but there was never any impetus to interfere with them; and I've had a few lucid dreams in which becoming lucid was the trigger for changing them. For me they were very different types of experience. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:31 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current My understanding has been that witnessing dreams is just that, witnessing them, not trying to change what's happening in them. No? True, but I think there might be a correlation. People who witness might be more inclined to dream lucidly, due to being more clear in all states. A friend of mine who witnesses sleep clearly and consistently says most of his dreams are lucid. I don’t know if he tries to change things or just dreams more consciously than is ordinarily the case. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... mailto:rick@... wrote : From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:04 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lucid dreaming can be induced with an electrical current Who thinks of lucid dreaming as mystical or spiritual? I don't think I've ever heard that one before. A lot of spiritual folks think of it that way. First reference to it I heard was in Carlos Casteneda’s books. Often discussed in talks at the Science and Non-Duality conference. MUM professor Charles Alexander (now deceased) did some research on it. It may be associated with witnessing sleep. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Another fascinating article presenting a different way of looking at experiences that many would call mystical or spiritual. To a scientist -- or to a non-dogmatist -- they're just experiences. Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electrical Current http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Scientists Induced Lucid Dreaming With An Electric... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 The findings are the first to show that inducing brain waves of a specific frequency produces lucid dreaming. View on www.businessinside... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-to-sleep-perchance-to-control-your-dreams-2014-11 Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheists Can't Transcend
Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Judy, Jesus said many mysterious ideas in his teachings. IMO, he was conveying the idea of consciousness as the basis of everything to ignorant people, including the apostles, at that time. I'm not contesting this, John. It's just that in this particular verse, the context and the original language strongly suggest that among you or in your midst is the more accurate translation than within you. For this reason, the Jews conspired to have the Romans kill him by crucifixion on a wooden cross. (What other kind of cross would they have crucified him on??) More likely, it was because he was understood to be claiming to be God, which was blasphemy as far as the Jews were concerned (still is). As far as the Romans were concerned, he was a troublemaker and potentially a threat to Roman rule. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Nope. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you (Luke 12:31). Matthew has Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness... (6:33). Again, Nabby, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, who he thought were spiritually corrupt and incapable of entering the Kingdom of God. Within only works if you wrench the verse out of context. His whole point was that he, Jesus, represented the Kingdom of God, and the Pharisees were so spiritually blind they couldn't recognize him as such even though he was in the midst of or among them, right in front of their very eyes, talking to them. If you want to make a threat to the Church case, fine, but you can't legitimately use that verse to do it. Maharishi meant well, but he was no Bible scholar, and he goofed badly on that one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Isn't it in Lukas somewhere it says Seek yea first the kingdom of heaven within.. ? Among turned up in newer translations probably because the within was confusing since they have no idea what that is supposed to be. Also, someone who sought within would be a threat to the Church knowing he would not find a way to it in their teachings. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : P.S.: The complete sentence is, The Kingdom of God is within/among/in the midst of you--you meaning the Pharisees. You can't leave off the you without seriously misrepresenting what Jesus was saying. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation within. Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was saying the Kingdom of God was within the Pharisees. Most translations other than the KJV have among or in the midst of or similar, referring to the Pharisees' inability to recognize Jesus as the representative of God's Kingdom. Organized religions don't talk much about transcending simply because they lack the methods to achieve it. The Kingdom of God is within must the most revolutionary concept in Christianity yet is rarely or even never discussed out of fear the Church would loose it's grip on the people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in free will are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? Fish in a barrel, baby... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Yes, I do know, but actually, I was responding to Bhairitu, not Barry. Really just a point of possible general interest for anyone following these discussions. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Uh-oh, Barry's having another ego-crisis. 600-plus words' worth. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-) That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Meanwhile, those of us with free will and more control can read things that the determinist robots on this forum have to post and decide *not* to respond. Often we can decide not to bother to read them at all. We can laugh at them instead. We have a luxury they do not. :-) IMO this latest display of determinist-driven thinking all started yesterday when I posted a couple of science articles that were not in the *least* challenging to most people. They just presented a different point of view on phenomena that some people are attached to and consider spiritual -- visions of God and lucid dreaming. A few people, who obviously have their minds determined by their knee-jerk reactions to anything that challenges their attachments, felt that they had to respond by attacking me personally. Others, like Share and (I suspect) Rick, just tripped on the new, alternative way of looking at these phenomena, and enjoyed the articles. And therein lies the difference. Some people DON'T feel that they have to be reactive and use any excuse possible to trigger one of their long-standing grudges so that they can get the person who said something in a new way or something that disagrees with what they believe. Others -- Judy, Ann, Nabby, and Willytex -- clearly feel differently. Their patterns suggest that they honestly feel that they have to somehow try to get the person whose writing has pushed their buttons. THEY live in a determinist world. Others here -- like Rick, Curtis, Anartaxius, Salyavin, and many others -- clearly live in more of a free will world. They can hear (or read) something that presents a phenomena or a belief in a different way (sometimes even a funny or mocking way) and NOT go ballistic and react. They can just trip on the new way of seeing things and either join in the discussion or let it go. Ann and Judy CAN'T let things go. The concept of determinism really DOES seem to apply to them and the way they live their online lives. I've made it clear many times that I don't consider *anything* they say worth spitting on, much less replying to or debating with them, but THEY CAN'T STOP TRYING. Every week they seem to have to react to almost everything I post, restarting their stalking campaign and trying to push MY buttons. And it doesn't work, because I have free will. I can write them off as the not-terribly-bright determinobitches they are and ignore them. They, from their side, seem to react even more strongly to THAT, and get more pissed off and more stalker-like the more I ignore them. So every so often I throw them a bone and rap about how I really see them, so they'll feel as if they've finally gotten the attention they're so desperate for. This is that rap. Now, back to ignoring them as the deterministic stalkbots they are. :-) :-) :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by the previous action. Judy, you know that defining and making distinctions between things like this is not Bawee's cuppa. He simply can't be bothered with detail, new understanding or subtlety. This is waaayy over his dummkopf. And he always defaults to the most negative spin possible with regard to people. His is a world where it is necessary, indeed his very survival depends upon, casting the worst possible light on someone's motivation or abilities. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : No. It's that you can't prove either free will or pre-destiny. So why bother? Enjoy your pattern. :-D On 05/12/2014 01:48 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Couple comments below... That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line, considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word determinist because I knew that Judy would feel she had to respond to it by ragging on me. And she did. Because *she* lives inside an eternal deterministic cycle in which any time that Barry says something that challenges or disagrees with something she believes in, she has to lash out and get him, at least in her mind. Ann lives in exactly the same odd universe, so of course she piled on. Apparently Judy was responding to the other Barry, not Baw so you can scratch that theory off the list. I think he's referring here to an earlier post of mine responding to his one-liner, in which all I did was repeat exactly what he said but changed determinist to free will. Amazing that he didn't anticipate how easily that lame remark could be turned against him. (Not to mention that my version is more appropriate, given that determinists do imagine the world they see around them in a different way from the free will they actually experience, but free will advocates can't imagine anything but what they experience.) (more snip) I think what's really got him going (aside from the humiliation of his extraordinarily stupid comments about Nabby's and my Bible discussion) is that I didn't comment at all on the two articles he posted, except for asking about lucid dreaming being mystical or spiritual, which I'd never heard before. He was expecting a big reaction from me but didn't get one, and that always makes him furious. You no more ignore Judy and I than we ignore you. I don't take you seriously and I certainly don't respect you but I don't ignore you. Obviously I don't seek your response when I make comments about the drivel you write here. You don't engage in conversations you simply sermonize. You talk at people not to them and you run from real engagement by simply hurling insults the moment anyone actually tries to converse with you. In this way, and in many others, you are a fuck up and a failure and you run scared. Dittoes. Also amazing that he thinks folks still believe this crap, if they ever did. (snip) Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in a determinist universe are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
Buck, you're a disgrace. You inveigh against spam but you don't even know what it is. And it's hard to believe the dishonesty of referring to Alex as A ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Ranchydog could certainly attempt to give some spiritual or FFL context as to dumping these posts here. She knows the rules. This is pure spam and a lazy writer's cheap shot diluting the drink of the salon of spiritual and FFL conversation of FFL here otherwise. Enforce the unifying code of FFL guidelines Rick has given us about spamming FFL or you will let this place down entirely into the gutter for lack of any over-seeing moderating discipline. Beware the spammer and spammer beware on FFL, -Buck No, you selectively copied that out of context. The guideline is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. -Buck A FFL Moderator writes: To refresh your memory: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. What part of Pretty much any topic is fair game. do you not understand? It is called spam, without any attempt at context. Lacking attempt at context has long been a standard Rick has used against spammers. Om, is Hillary a meditator? Yes Hillary is terribly interesting and being talked about elsewhere. Just wondering what this has to do with FFL? Or is it spam? Did you have a connection to make with FFL, the Fairfield meditating community? How's about a question, would meditators vote for Hillary? How would you read the meditator community on Hillary? The spiritual vote here, would it go for Hillary? -Buck Raunchydog writes: With 2016 speculation ramping up, the public commentary about Hillary Clinton is following predictable patterns. Several pervasive anti-Hillary themes have been dusted off for yet another political cycle; these are carefully-crafted and patently false talking points designed to dehumanize and demean her. Many of the themes are rooted in the sexism and misogyny that permeate our culture. Latest talking point: NEW Anti-Hillary Theme #11: HER HEALTH Disgusting, unfounded speculation. http://peterdaou.com/2014/01/guide-to-anti-hillary-themes/#more-2616 http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpeterdaou.com%2F2014%2F01%2Fguide-to-anti-hillary-themes%2F%23more-2616h=-AQEZacpvs=1 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I don't think there are extraordinary health issues with Hillary, but Rove is an excellent strategist. He is a class of political operative, who will say anything to win. So, he chooses a topic that is alarming, personal health, and then wields his innuendo, like a master, I never said she had brain damage Brilliant - unprincipled, scummy, and underhanded, but brilliant, nonetheless. The nickname GW Bush had for him, was, Turd Blossom. Kinda says it all. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Karl Rove is questioning Hillary Clinton's health for running as president in the next election. In her jyotish chart, it shows that she will be running a weak Sun in her first house. So, that means that this health issue will be a major factor in her decision to run for the presidency. It is likely that she will address this point on February 17, 2015 by announcing that she will not run for the office. http://news.yahoo.com/rove-hillary-clinton-brain-damage-135738855.html http://news.yahoo.com/rove-hillary-clinton-brain-damage-135738855.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] A thought -- freely willed -- about determinism
Question is, why would you want to suss out someone's trigger words? Why would you want to make a person your puppet? What kind of sick ego/power trip is that? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : As a more serious reply, the effect of language on people is (obviously) a continuing interest of mine as well. It's fascinating to see how the use of a simple Anglo-Saxon word can completely turn off higher brain functions in the person it is spoken or written to, and reduce them to an angry, reactive, unthinking, out-of-control revenge machine. I keep hoping that some of them will catch themselves, as the Prime Minister in your Zen story presumably did, and actually learn something from their own reactivity and how it renders them puppets to anyone who can suss out their trigger words, but they never do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
Buck hasn't won anything but the Pain in the Butt Award, IMHO. It's dishonest of him to claim Alex took what he quoted out of context. What's out of context is the single sentence Buck quoted, given that what Alex quoted specifies the sorts of topics that that sentence potentially includes. Buck doesn't get to define the topics the guideline refers to; Rick does--and has. Buck also needs to learn what spam is and is not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog@... wrote : Ah ha! Buck wins the battle of semantics but remains powerless to control the wild beasts of FFL. Don't give up, Buck. The place wouldn't be the same without you. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?...It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Orwell 1984 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, you selectively copied that out of context. The guideline is: Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. -Buck A FFL Moderator writes: To refresh your memory: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. What part of Pretty much any topic is fair game. do you not understand? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Om, is Hillary a meditator? Yes Hillary is terribly interesting and being talked about elsewhere. Just wondering what this has to do with FFL? Or is it spam? Did you have a connection to make with FFL, the Fairfield meditating community? How's about a question, would meditators vote for Hillary? How would you read the meditator community on Hillary? The spiritual vote here, would it go for Hillary? -Buck Raunchydog writes: With 2016 speculation ramping up, the public commentary about Hillary Clinton is following predictable patterns. Several pervasive anti-Hillary themes have been dusted off for yet another political cycle; these are carefully-crafted and patently false talking points designed to dehumanize and demean her. Many of the themes are rooted in the sexism and misogyny that permeate our culture. Latest talking point: NEW Anti-Hillary Theme #11: HER HEALTH Disgusting, unfounded speculation. http://peterdaou.com/2014/01/guide-to-anti-hillary-themes/#more-2616 http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpeterdaou.com%2F2014%2F01%2Fguide-to-anti-hillary-themes%2F%23more-2616h=-AQEZacpvs=1 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I don't think there are extraordinary health issues with Hillary, but Rove is an excellent strategist. He is a class of political operative, who will say anything to win. So, he chooses a topic that is alarming, personal health, and then wields his innuendo, like a master, I never said she had brain damage Brilliant - unprincipled, scummy, and underhanded, but brilliant, nonetheless. The nickname GW Bush had for him, was, Turd Blossom. Kinda says it all. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Karl Rove is questioning Hillary Clinton's health for running as president in the next election. In her jyotish chart, it shows that she will be running a weak Sun in her first house. So, that means that this health issue will be a major factor in her decision to run for the presidency. It is likely that she will address this point on February 17, 2015 by announcing that she will not run for the office. http://news.yahoo.com/rove-hillary-clinton-brain-damage-135738855.html http://news.yahoo.com/rove-hillary-clinton-brain-damage-135738855.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
EFT has no useful effect as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques that may be used with the purported 'energy' technique, but proponents of EFT have published material claiming otherwise. Their work, however, is flawed and so unreliable: high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques#cite_note-Bakker-4 A 2009 review found 'methodological flaws' in research studies that had reported 'small successes' for EFT and the related Tapas Acupressure Technique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapas_Acupressure_Technique. The review concluded that positive results may be 'attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation. Psychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques#Research_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques#Research_quality ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I agree, fleetwood, and have great appreciation for all kinds of energy work like EFT tapping.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
Non Sequiturs 'R' Us... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Of course destroying words is no solution at all. But just think how the word *cancer* can affect people, making their heart race, causing all those fight or flight hormones to be released in the body. What is the solution for that? RD: Donno. It depends on the non sequitur. On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:59 AM, anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Well, that was a double plus good quotation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog@... wrote : Ah ha! Buck wins the battle of semantics but remains powerless to control the wild beasts of FFL. Don't give up, Buck. The place wouldn't be the same without you. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?...It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Orwell 1984
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
Have you really never read or heard any of the arguments against abortion? That's hard to believe. BTW, abortion is not necessarily always a personal tragedy to those who have one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Lawson, I admit I'm flummoxed by peoples' fanatical position on Roe vs. Wade. What is that about?! Abortion is a personal tragedy for sure. But why does the religious right try to turn it into a matter of public policy?! On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:06 AM, LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Saunders isn't a corporatist, and I certainly would vote for him in a national election. But I would never, ever vote for him in a primary. Lesser of two evils issues are all we CAN get in Presidential races and all we will ever get unless we take a page from the political book of the Religious Right, who have been working to overturn Roe v Wade since the day it started by starting from the very bottom and voting in sympathetic dog catchers and school board members who then run for higher political officer after they establish their political credentials. Moderates and liberals simply don't have the multi-generational fanaticism to play that game, counting on people's better nature, instead. The Religious Right knows that there's no such thing [the Bible told them so], so they always assume the worst about everyone and manipulate, er, act accordingly. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog@... wrote : So who isn't a corporatist? Obama? Or didn't you know that when you voted for him?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Beyond True and False
Sam Harris insists that free will is just an illusion, so this would be an excellent topic for Rick to ask about when he interviews Harris, no? http://www.samharris.org/free-will http://www.samharris.org/free-will I even suspect that this irrelevance of true/false might be at play when discussing the free will issue, and have something to do with belief, and the conditioning that belief imposes on our perceptions. To someone who believes in predestination or even in determinism, their belief may impose upon them a subconscious inability to perceive the world any other way, and thus their actions *are* out of their control, if for no other reason than it never occurs to them to exert control.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
It isn't a matter of whether you agree with it (that's a non sequitur, as are eating meat on Fridays and the Inquisition), it's why you wouldn't understand that people who believe abortion involves murdering innocent, helpless human life are so appalled by it and feel it's their duty to help save all those lives, no matter what it takes. I reject their premise, and I'm very firmly pro-choice, but I have no trouble understanding why it upsets them. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, I began leaving the Catholic Church when I was 17 and they said it was no longer a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. The final straw occurred a year later when I was sitting in my boyfriend's World History class and learned about the Inquisition. This was all in the late 60s and abortion was not yet the inflammatory issue it is now. I understand that people think the foetus is a person and that it's killing a person but I don't agree with this POV. On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:20 PM, emilymaenot@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, did you not say you were raised Catholic? How could you not understand the issue well enough to understand some people getting fanatical about it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, sure I've heard the arguments against abortion. Yet I still think some people get fanatical about it and that is what I don't understand. On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:59 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Have you really never read or heard any of the arguments against abortion? That's hard to believe. BTW, abortion is not necessarily always a personal tragedy to those who have one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Lawson, I admit I'm flummoxed by peoples' fanatical position on Roe vs. Wade. What is that about?! Abortion is a personal tragedy for sure. But why does the religious right try to turn it into a matter of public policy?! On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:06 AM, LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Saunders isn't a corporatist, and I certainly would vote for him in a national election. But I would never, ever vote for him in a primary. Lesser of two evils issues are all we CAN get in Presidential races and all we will ever get unless we take a page from the political book of the Religious Right, who have been working to overturn Roe v Wade since the day it started by starting from the very bottom and voting in sympathetic dog catchers and school board members who then run for higher political officer after they establish their political credentials. Moderates and liberals simply don't have the multi-generational fanaticism to play that game, counting on people's better nature, instead. The Religious Right knows that there's no such thing [the Bible told them so], so they always assume the worst about everyone and manipulate, er, act accordingly. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog@... wrote : So who isn't a corporatist? Obama? Or didn't you know that when you voted for him?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
Exactly. And also why they want abortion to be illegal. Why that should be hard to understand, I can't imagine. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : They consider it MURDER. Not just rhetoric; that is how they really see it, as the murder of a child. That is why they are so upset about it. I do not agree, at all, but I certainly see why they become fanatics. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, sure I've heard the arguments against abortion. Yet I still think some people get fanatical about it and that is what I don't understand. On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:59 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Have you really never read or heard any of the arguments against abortion? That's hard to believe. BTW, abortion is not necessarily always a personal tragedy to those who have one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Lawson, I admit I'm flummoxed by peoples' fanatical position on Roe vs. Wade. What is that about?! Abortion is a personal tragedy for sure. But why does the religious right try to turn it into a matter of public policy?!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
Did you miss the word allegedly, Barry? It is not a synonym for I believe... Well, there's floating during TM-SIdhis pracice, and then there's floating during daily activity. Allegedly someone fully in Unity could perform any and all TM-SIdhis at any time, in any circumstance. And you believe this why? But of course, MMY never demonstrated floating in public that I have heard of and never said that he had floated, only that he could if he wanted to. Oh, my bad. You believe it because some guy who could never demonstrate it said it. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Could they float? Apparently that was a minor test for immortality in Maharishi's eyes: if they were well-enoughed established in Unity that they could float whenever they wanted, they might be immortal. Trying to ignore the nonsensical nature of the entire theory, I would suggest that if you believe in it then you have to admit that Maharishi was never able to float (levitate). There are no minor tests for immortality. There is only one test, and it's fairly major -- if you die, you're not. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Buck
Nobody is spamming us, Buck. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, and Om may the Unified Field of our forum community guidelines and our FairfieldLife community list owner and moderators protect us all from the spamming spammer who spams us. -Buck in the Dome Awoelflebater serving, This is Spam: This is a lot of Spam .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL
You left something out, Buck. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” FFL guidelines: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
You'll wait forever, given that Lawson never said he believed it. The rest of us will just laugh at you and go on about our business (so you can strike the we and just use I). Just as an additional point, haven't you seen the reports that many of these statements about immortality were spoken by a guy on videotapes that were filmed in the last few years of his life as he was lying prone on his bed, using a special (and rather deceptive) apparatus that made it appear as if he was sitting up. If you actually believe what he was purported to say about his ability to levitate, why couldn't he have just levitated over to the lecture hall and given these talks in person, and while actually sitting up? For that matter, if you believe that he was actually able to levitate and that there is some relationship between this and immortality, why did he die? We'll wait...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL
No, not spam. Alex deletes spam whenever it's posted, so you have nothing to worry about. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yes, Pretty much any topic is fair game. But Not Spam. -Buck authfriend writes: You left something out, Buck. “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” FFL guidelines: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A polite request...
Is there any possibility that you could simply refrain from reading the posts you aren't interested in instead of demanding self-censorship from us poor unfortunate Americans? Oh, and who are the those of us besides yourself? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : ...from those of us fortunate enough not to live in the United States. Is there any possibility that the politicos here could refrain from making incendiary posts about American Presidential politics for a while longer? I mean, there are still 906 days between now and the election. Do those of us who really aren't all that interested in the mockery that is the American election process have to suffer through it all those days? Maybe once the primaries start you can start up again. But would it be too much to ask to try to keep it in your pants until then? Oh shit. I was supposed to be being polite. My bad.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL
I don't think you mean thoughtcrime, Buck. Are you a mind-reader? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Yep, and this FFL is a moderated list particularly around the thoughtcrime of the posting of spam. As a protection to the life of the group we have a policy given to us by our over-seer, Rick himself, about spam being posted to this communal list. -Buck “so you have nothing to worry about.” Nope. You know, on most any forum always there is risk of spam; hence, FFL as the controversial public and spiritual internet forum and community that FFL is does maintain an active vigilance out for spamming spammers. -Buck Yes, Pretty much any topic is fair game. But Not Spam. -Buck authfriend agrees: No, not spam. Alex deletes spam whenever it's posted, .. “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” FFL guidelines: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that violates our rules, please let us know.. “ Yes, and Om may the Unified Field of our forum community guidelines and our FairfieldLife community list owner and moderators protect us all from the spamming spammer who spams us. -Buck in the Dome
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
This time Barry missed and excited on another. Of course, the wish to find out in and of itself doesn't mean no possibility of sadness or disappointment any more than it means no possibility of excitement. What's sad is the person who is so emotionally repressed as to suggest either. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Eh, well, it would be very exciting should it ever be proven to exist, for many reasons. Of course, if it is some arbitrary non-TMer, who ends up floating and it turns out to have nothing to do with spiritual growth ala TM, then I'd be sad on one level and excited on another. Ahem. That sadness identifies you more of a will to believe person than a wish to find out person. If you were the latter, there would be no possibility of sadness or disappointment, n'est-ce pas? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, LEnglish5@... wrote : Well, there's floating during TM-SIdhis pracice, and then there's floating during daily activity. Allegedly someone fully in Unity could perform any and all TM-SIdhis at any time, in any circumstance. But of course, MMY never demonstrated floating in public that I have heard of and never said that he had floated, only that he could if he wanted to. I personally think this levitation thing is overrated. I'm happy when I just witness someone being kind or generous or interesting. The only floaters I've ever seen (and are likely to see) are in my own toilet bowl. That's it! I guess Rama was just one big turd in the toilet bowl of life. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Could they float? Apparently that was a minor test for immortality in Maharishi's eyes: if they were well-enoughed established in Unity that they could float whenever they wanted, they might be immortal. Trying to ignore the nonsensical nature of the entire theory, I would suggest that if you believe in it then you have to admit that Maharishi was never able to float (levitate). There are no minor tests for immortality. There is only one test, and it's fairly major -- if you die, you're not. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
I also strongly disagree with Jim's thesis. However... This time, Barry missed cancer cannot get a foothold--i.e., cannot flourish and replicate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Thank you for the clarity, Curtis, and for taking on this particular meme, and form of New Age shaming. I just finished reading a study in which a world-reknowned oncology (cancer) specialist was quoted as saying, Every human being on the planet has one or more cancer cells in their body at this point in time. The question is whether they will flourish and replicate. (snip) Jim: Once you know yourself, not just intellectually, but in every way possible, unbounded awareness, cancer cannot get a foot hold. Cancer is usually an emotional disease, although it eventually manifests physically. Any repressed block of emotion can solidify into a cancer.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
Comments below... Especially coming from one of the Maharishi enlightened. What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t This exchange illustrates my basic thesis on this forum. It REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one *says* about people one doesn't like on FFL. All that matters is what the persons saying it do in their posts, as often-unintended accessories to what they say. Very curious to know what Barry believes peopledo in their posts other than say things (maybe attach an image or link to an article or YouTube video, but other than that?).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
Isn't that something? Yes, I've said the same thing. I wonder if he remembers it. I stumbled on it some time ago when I was looking for something else on alt.m.t, saved it, then forgot I had it until I stumbled over it in my own files a couple days ago. I suspect it was intended as a putdown of Maharishi with his claims for enlightened behavior. In any case, I hardly think he'd want us to hold him to it now; so many of his insults to TMers are based on the notion that TM is responsible for what he considers their unenlightened behavior. Whatever would he do if he had to stop using that line of attack? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : That's funny as shit! As I said... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Comments below... Especially coming from one of the Maharishi enlightened. What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t This exchange illustrates my basic thesis on this forum. It REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one *says* about people one doesn't like on FFL. All that matters is what the persons saying it do in their posts, as often-unintended accessories to what they say. Very curious to know what Barry believes peopledo in their posts other than say things (maybe attach an image or link to an article or YouTube video, but other than that?).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators and Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016?
I think what Barry means by what [they] do in their posts is the spin he puts on what they say, whether that's what they intended or not--e.g., if you or I say something negative about Barry, it's because we're trying desperately to force him to respond to us. Of course, that cuts both ways--e.g., when Barry gratuitously demeans somebody, it's because he's desperately trying to make himself feel Important and Superior. (I do think fleetwood was referring not to those remarks of Barry's but rather to the startling quote I found on alt.m.t--now snipped--in which Barry suggests that enlightenment has no relationship to behavior.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : That's funny as shit! As I said... At least Judy thought she knew what Bawee was trying to say in those two sentences because I didn't have a clue. Not only was the phrasing strange but the concept was stranger still. And Bawee has purportedly written a thesis on this forum?! And what sort of accessories does he think we all have that are often-unintended? (snip) This exchange illustrates my basic thesis on this forum. It REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what one *says* about people one doesn't like on FFL. All that matters is what the persons saying it do in their posts, as often-unintended accessories to what they say. Very curious to know what Barry believes peopledo in their posts other than say things (maybe attach an image or link to an article or YouTube video, but other than that?).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cafe Zen
It's good that you're taking a break from demonstrating your spiritual advancement by trying to get those who disagree with you, Barry. While others on this forum demonstrate their spiritual advancement by trying to get those who disagree with them, you'll have to forgive me if I prefer to just sit in a sunny cafe and take in the scene.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cutting Spam on FFL
I suspect Richard is referring just to your posts, Buck. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Whoa, TM/MIU/MUM are a sacred posting ground here. The TM/MIU/MUM postings to FFL are well grandfathered on to FFL as a kind of fact based postulate and original thought. They are a particularly protected and a substantial content of FFL. As essential FFL spiritual grist for the mill, we would be nothing here without TM the TM movement postings here, -Buck “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” No, not spam. Alex deletes spam whenever it's posted, so you have nothing to worry about. , ..You left out something, Judy - the TMO and MUM spam. Go figure. Yep, and this FFL is a moderated list particularly around the thoughtcrime of the posting of spam. As a protection to the life of the group we have a policy given to us by our over-seer, Rick himself, about spam being posted to this communal list. -Buck “so you have nothing to worry about.” Nope. You know, on most any forum always there is risk of spam; hence, FFL as the controversial public and spiritual internet forum and community that FFL is does maintain an active vigilance out for spamming spammers. -Buck Yes, Pretty much any topic is fair game. But Not Spam. -Buck authfriend agrees: No, not spam. Alex deletes spam whenever it's posted, .. “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” FFL guidelines: Pretty much any topic is fair game. Currently, there's a lot of discussion about American politics. We have discussed spirituality, politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc. “Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic the group owner may remove your content—or you—from the group altogether.” “Yahoo Groups, in its sole discretion, may terminate or remove any content, Group or your Yahoo ID immediately and without notice if (a) Yahoo believes that you have acted inconsistently with the spirit or the letter of the Yahoo Terms of Service or the Yahoo Groups Guidelines, or (b) Yahoo believes you have violated or tried to violate the rights of others. Please help us keep Yahoo Groups an enjoyable and positive experience. If you see a Group or content that violates our rules, please let us know.. “ Yes, and Om may the Unified Field of our forum community guidelines and our FairfieldLife community list owner and moderators protect us all from the spamming spammer who spams us. -Buck in the Dome
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
Good for Sam Harris. Anyone without a solid understanding of this elementary truth is not going to get anywhere studying the nature of consciousness. According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
Actually, according to the dictionary, meditation can mean several different things depending on the context. You can use the term in an everyday sense to mean to think things over, but it doesn't simply mean that, and that isn't what it means when we use it on FFL or in the context of a spiritual practice. To claim that's all it means just makes you look dumb. According to the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think things over'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike Doughney runs it now. You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
As you know, minet.org is Mike Doughney's Web site. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/16/2014 9:55 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike Doughney runs it now. Apparently, Knapp is still active as a promoter of the TM-Free Blog. http://minet.org/ http://minet.org/ You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing
The first paragraph here is a good example of what Maharishi meant by Knowledge is structured in consciousness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : While alive, everybody has experience, consciousness. So 'something' is making the content of experience visible. There is always a 'witness'. The mind's interpretation of what this so-called witness is changes with practice (whichever one or ones are being used). The 24/7 kind of inner witnessing is one of those stages of change that many experience. My experience is that it basically evaporated, almost like it became a mist and soaked into the world of outer experience as if the outer world was a sponge and just vanished, that is, the so-called witness becomes identical with all other experience, with thought, objects, and action. So one cannot say 'I' am witnessing. At this point witnessing has no centre, no location, it is no longer like a receiver of experience, like an homunculus, like a little man in your head watching stuff. Descriptions and models of consciousness completely break down at this point, they are of no use because it is not possible to formulate a model that includes everything; the only thing that makes it intelligible in some way is the experience itself. What is especially intriguing is the actual experience is no different from the way it was prior to starting spiritual life, nothing is changed. This is why some teachers say one is already enlightened. It is almost as if the spiritual path is an aberration you have to grow out of to gain fulfilment; you think it is going to somehow save you and make things better, but it is just part of the dream you are trying to wake up from. Except you were already awake from the beginning. So in this sense enlightenment really does not exist. The Zen phrase 'selling water by the river' is actually pretty much how the whole thing comes down. Models are just navigation points, and roughed out approximations. People's experiences as they grow have wide variations that never seem to fit that well into the models, except perhaps for a few. So evaluating others' experiences on the basis of their conformity to a particular model has a wide possibility of error. The goal is to get people to have this experience of totality, not to berate them for their lack of conformance to a model as one is interpreting it. The spiritual path reeks with smugness, and none of us are immune.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why did TM *really* become so popular (for a while)?
Almost 900 words devoted to an attempt to make TMers feel bad about themselves. This, of course, is how Barry makes himself feel Special these days--by attributing to TMers the fantasies of Specialness that he himself entertained about TM. Ultimately it didn't work out, so he moved on to Rama to get his Specialness fix. But that didn't end well either, so he tried becoming an expat. Looks like that isn't doing it for him any more, so he has to double down on his More Special Than TMers rap. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry. How many words wasted here, this morning, instead of the simple ones we all want to hear - Please, please please admit to us here, that you have no foundation in Being, no established silence, and no witnessing. In other words, no foundation of Maharishi's teaching, and certainly no enlightenment. Then we will take you for who you are - An ex-TM teacher, who could get to spiritual first base. Howzabout it?:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Well, *of course* it was the Beatles. snip
Re: [FairfieldLife] The transition from BC to the state that comes after it
Has anybody else noticed how obsessed with dicks Barry is lately? (BTW, Barry, Viagra didn't come onto the market until long after you'd beat feet from the TMO.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Because I was once a teacher, and have no wish to lead prospective seekers Off The Path and into distractions that will hinder their spiritual progress, I must post an addendum to my reportage of this important-but-seemingly-lost Maharishi teaching. At the ATR course at which I heard it, one male TM teacher -- obviously in a fit of renewed enthusiasm at having been presented a new vision of possibilities -- pragmatically but ignorantly asked, So Maharishi, if we're in BC but having a few...uh...erectile dysfunction issues, can we still achieve SLC by taking Viagra? Maharishi pondered the question deeply, as he was wont to do when anyone asked him a question he'd never anticipated because he was so firmly established in SLC himself, and said, No. That would be like relying on psychedelic drugs to achieve enlightenment. The boner must spring forth from the Source Of All Knowledge all on its own. Just sayin' this so that none of the TM TBs here start searching their Spam folders for Viagra ads they had previously ignored. From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:30 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The transition from BC to the state that comes after it Does anyone else remember Maharishi's occasional talks on ATR courses about the state of consciousness that comes *after* Brahman Consciousness (BC)? I remember that it was referred to as SLC (for Shiva's Lingam Consciousness, a big improvement over the acronym SDC or Stiff Dick Consciousness he used in earlier versions of the talk). As I remember the lectures, the gist of the concept is that after a few years of being in Brahman Consciousness (or at the very least claiming that one is), even the BC-ers get bored trying to convince the ignorant rabble around them that they're ignorant rabble because they're not in BC like they are. There is only so much fun you can have with this. So the transition from BC to SLC is achieved when the person in BC just can't take it any more, whips out his lingam, and starts waving it in the faces of the ignorant rabble, while chanting the sacred mahavakya See? I *told* you I was important! The shakti produced by a person in SLC doing this is supposedly so powerful that it can instantly enlighten even the most ignorant rabble. Maharishi cited a passage in the Shiva Sutras that told the story of how one ancient sage in SLC enlightened an entire village of ignorant rabble with just one wag of his willy. Could it be possible that we have one of these great saints among us? I mean, the guy has now claimed to have so Been There Done That with CC, GC, UC, and BC. So is it possible that he's making the transition to SLC? You have to admit, this theory kinda covers all the bases...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on witnessing
As I believe was mentioned here not long ago, as far as DSM-IV is concerned, dissociation is to be considered a disorder only if it bothers the person who is experiencing it. As should not be a surprise, I completely agree with you that the science of dissociative disorders pretty much *has* to be considered when evaluating claims of spiritual experience. If it quacks like dissociation and acts like dissociation but claims to be enlightenment, most sane people are going to come down on the side of dissociation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
On what basis do you think this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what should be done after that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
And he would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, opening a can of worms, I think this because I heard through the grapevine that Maharishi said it. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:53 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On what basis do you think this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what should be done after that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Life on Mars
Hoagland, whose conspiracy theory it is, appears to be something of a crackpot. Look at the last of the links at the end, about India's moon mission: http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-81.htm http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-81.htm I'm highly dubious about the conspiracy theory at the end though, why would NASA be trying to convince us that we live in an otherwise lifeless universe when it knows otherwise? It's a ridiculous idea that we wouldn't be able to cope with knowledge of alien life, look at Nabby, the prospect don't seem to bother him much!- Poor guy thinks we already have proof and that they come all this way just to make pretty shapes in wheatfields!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
And where would this ancient source of wisdom have gotten it from, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, important to repeat that I did not myself hear Maharishi say this. But it makes sense to me and if he did say it, I'd say he got it from an ancient source of wisdom. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:03 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And he would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, opening a can of worms, I think this because I heard through the grapevine that Maharishi said it. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:53 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On what basis do you think this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what should be done after that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
That isn't a problem with Harris's definition, it's a problem of inadequate understanding of the nature of the practice (possibly the result of poor instruction). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, the problem with Sam Harris' definition is that it might lead people into *trying not to be judgmental and discursive. Which of course is counter productive to that settled state. But if it works for people, great. On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:04 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 5/16/2014 9:49 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Actually, according to the dictionary, meditation can mean several different things depending on the context. You can use the term in an everyday sense to mean to think things over, but it doesn't simply mean that, and that isn't what it means when we use it on FFL or in the context of a spiritual practice. To claim that's all it means just makes you look dumb. According to the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think things over'. So, I wonder what it is in practicing TM that you do if not simply thinking things over? It's not concentration and it's not mind-control. What is it, exactly? According to Sam Harris, mindfulness is simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Developing this quality of mind has been shown to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression; improve cognitive function; and even produce changes in gray matter density in regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self-awareness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
And these wise and ancient women would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, ancient source of wisdom would get it from wise and ancient women... On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And where would this ancient source of wisdom have gotten it from, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, important to repeat that I did not myself hear Maharishi say this. But it makes sense to me and if he did say it, I'd say he got it from an ancient source of wisdom. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:03 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And he would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, opening a can of worms, I think this because I heard through the grapevine that Maharishi said it. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:53 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On what basis do you think this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what should be done after that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: commenting on enlightenment, without a clue
I think everyone understands the word he used, nonjudgmental. And it fits right in with New Age thinking about avoiding judgment. Destroyed makes no sense. You can't destroy a word. Plus which, Sam Harris was born in 1967, right at the beginning of the New Age. And finally, I doubt anyone is going to start mindfulness practice based solely on Harris's definition. Your argument that it's his definition that's the problem is incredibly lame. I suspect you picked up somewhere that mindfulness might have negative results if it was misunderstood and have just been waiting to drop that idea into a conversation here. But you chose the wrong place to drop it, which is why you're having such trouble defending it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, imo, the word judgement is one of those words that the so called New Age has destroyed. But probably Sam Harris isn't aware of that. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:31 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: That isn't a problem with Harris's definition, it's a problem of inadequate understanding of the nature of the practice (possibly the result of poor instruction). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, the problem with Sam Harris' definition is that it might lead people into *trying not to be judgmental and discursive. Which of course is counter productive to that settled state. But if it works for people, great. On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:04 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 5/16/2014 9:49 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Actually, according to the dictionary, meditation can mean several different things depending on the context. You can use the term in an everyday sense to mean to think things over, but it doesn't simply mean that, and that isn't what it means when we use it on FFL or in the context of a spiritual practice. To claim that's all it means just makes you look dumb. According to the dictionary, meditation means simply 'to think things over'. So, I wonder what it is in practicing TM that you do if not simply thinking things over? It's not concentration and it's not mind-control. What is it, exactly? According to Sam Harris, mindfulness is simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Developing this quality of mind has been shown to reduce pain, anxiety, and depression; improve cognitive function; and even produce changes in gray matter density in regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self-awareness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hillary's Health: An Issue in 2016
And they perceived and observed the accuracy of this idea how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, from their own experience and that of other women they experienced as being mostly accurate in their perceptions and observations. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:33 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And these wise and ancient women would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, ancient source of wisdom would get it from wise and ancient women... On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:25 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And where would this ancient source of wisdom have gotten it from, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, important to repeat that I did not myself hear Maharishi say this. But it makes sense to me and if he did say it, I'd say he got it from an ancient source of wisdom. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:03 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: And he would have known this how, do you think? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Judy, opening a can of worms, I think this because I heard through the grapevine that Maharishi said it. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:53 AM, authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On what basis do you think this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what should be done after that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk
Anybody have any idea what she means by old Yahoo format?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
Buck, herein I'm responding from Neo rather than old yahoo format.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:20 PM, dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
No, MJ it is odd and unique. It is something [bad and unconventional] with
you. -Buck
mjackson74 writes:
I'm just using yahoo mail - blame it on them.
On Sun, 5/18/14, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 18, 2014, 2:55 AM
Dear MJ,
what ever did you do to repair your computer that it formats
so badly
to FFL? It has been a chronic [ongoing] problem with you.
Garbled and gaps in text. Nobody else has posts come
through to the list like yours do. You must have your own
unique program. They are often a complete pain in
the rear to respond to because of all the re-formatting that
happens with you. Does not
seem to matter which browser. Possibly the internet itself
may be
allergic to your unique and negative content even though the
internet is
supposed to be net-neutral. It must be something [bad] you
are doing, -Buck
mjackson74writes:
On Sat, 5/17/14, Michael
Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:Subject: [FairfieldLife] Clay
and SilkTo: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.comDate
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.comDate: Saturday, May 17, 2014,
8:39 PMyiv3762032787 #yiv3762032787
--yiv3762032787ygrp-mkp
{border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px0;padding:0
10px;}#yiv3762032787
#yiv3762032787ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;}
Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk
Michael's posts have always looked just fine to me on the Web site. Maybe the problem is on your end, Buck. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : No, MJ it is odd and unique. It is something [bad and unconventional] with you. -Buck mjackson74 writes: I'm just using yahoo mail - blame it on them. On Sun, 5/18/14, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 18, 2014, 2:55 AM Dear MJ, what ever did you do to repair your computer that it formats so badly to FFL? It has been a chronic [ongoing] problem with you. Garbled and gaps in text. Nobody else has posts come through to the list like yours do. You must have your own unique program. They are often a complete pain in the rear to respond to because of all the re-formatting that happens with you. Does not seem to matter which browser. Possibly the internet itself may be allergic to your unique and negative content even though the internet is supposed to be net-neutral. It must be something [bad] you are doing, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on witnessing
Just for da record... I don't need to go into any detail here but just can mention that subjective experiences were never evaluated separated from behavior. I believe that Maharishi got that right. I don't need to say any more about that because you provided more than enough information for people to judge if your behavior and claims match up. What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t You'd never know Barry had ever entertained this perspective the way he links behavior and enlightenment these days, would you? I happen to favor this understanding of enlightenment myself, one of Barry's and my rare points of agreement.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Roller Girl
Excellent point, Richard. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/17/2014 9:42 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Just a non-sequitur, sitting in this cafe, enjoying the sunny day. It is triggered by the vision of a young, tall, slim, and stunning Dutch girl pausing for a moment to adjust her breasts for maximum effect before continuing her rollerblading tour of Leiden. It's almost always funny to read the comments made by men about women's breasts. Maybe the girl didn't give a shit what her boobs mean to men like Barry - maybe she was just adjusting her bra for comfort. Most men don't have to tote around big mammary glands while doing sports. Maybe Barry should grow a pair. LoL!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk
Oh, so you're not talking about the Web site at all. I see.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
Judy, first of all, I read FFL posts in my yahoo email inbox. BUT...I have a
choice. I can either read and reply in what yahoo calls Basic format or in what
they call Full Featured. The latter is better for replying because then there
are not those long tails with huge blank spaces such as are seen in MJ's posts.
But I prefer the Basic format for reading and also for deleting. If one deletes
in Full Featured format, then all posts in a thread get deleted.
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:32 AM, LEnglish5@... [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
I don't know, but there IS something odd about some messages that get
posted, or at least I see lots of extra stuff at the tail end of some messages
and not others.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Anybody have any idea what she means by old Yahoo format?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
Buck, herein I'm responding from Neo rather than old yahoo format.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:20 PM, dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
No, MJ it is odd and unique. It is something [bad and unconventional] with
you. -Buck
mjackson74 writes:
I'm just using yahoo mail - blame it on them.
On Sun, 5/18/14, dhamiltony2k5@... mailto:dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Clay and Silk
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, May 18, 2014, 2:55 AM
Dear MJ,
what ever did you do to repair your computer that it formats
so badly
to FFL? It has been a chronic [ongoing] problem with you.
Garbled and gaps in text. Nobody else has posts come
through to the list like yours do. You must have your own
unique program. They are often a complete pain in
the rear to respond to because of all the re-formatting that
happens with you. Does not
seem to matter which browser. Possibly the internet itself
may be
allergic to your unique and negative content even though the
internet is
supposed to be net-neutral. It must be something [bad] you
are doing, -Buck
mjackson74writes:
On Sat, 5/17/14, Michael
Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:Subject: [FairfieldLife] Clay
and SilkTo: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.comDate
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.comDate: Saturday, May 17, 2014,
8:39 PMyiv3762032787 #yiv3762032787
--yiv3762032787ygrp-mkp
{border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px0;padding:0
10px;}#yiv3762032787
#yiv3762032787ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;}
[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on witnessing
Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Just for da record... I don't need to go into any detail here but just can mention that subjective experiences were never evaluated separated from behavior. I believe that Maharishi got that right. I don't need to say any more about that because you provided more than enough information for people to judge if your behavior and claims match up. What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t You'd never know Barry had ever entertained this perspective the way he links behavior and enlightenment these days, would you? I happen to favor this understanding of enlightenment myself, one of Barry's and my rare points of agreement. C: You are mixing up levels here. Actually, I was quoting something Barry wrote. In traditional systems it is emphasized that there is a wide range of possible behaviors for the so called enlightened. I am referring to how Maharishi managed the path. Yes, you see, I disagree with how Maharishi managed the path, whatever that means in this context. Barry apparently did too back when he wrote what I quoted, or at least was considering the possibility that Maharishi got it wrong. It goes without saying that people should be judged on their behavior regardless of their state of consciousness. But by the same token, their state of consciousness cannot be judged on the basis of their behavior, if one has nothing to do with the other. The issue is confused further by Jim self proclaiming himself as enlightened within a system that has broken down. The inmates are now running the TM prison. But in the context of the movement itself there would be no recognition of Jim's self proclaimed status. Authority in the organization is gained through time served or lots of cash, not subjective claims for experience. In my view, because I do not assume that discrete states of enlightenment exist or that it means anything concerning how the world works, I am judging people just on their words and deeds. No one gets an enlightenment pass for bad behavior including the so called gurus.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Heretical Heresy
Of course your question wasn't nonsensical, Share. It was perfectly reasonable, a good question, in fact. Barry is apparently so eager to diss TMers that he misread it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : turq wrote: If TM cost less, and were not taught by a cult whose primary goal is to recruit new members of the cult to fill its coffers, I'd be able to suggest that people learn it. So I don't agree that my question was nonsensical. In fact, I think turq's comment above indicates that he thinks the TM technique is valuable, except for the cost and certain qualities he thinks the organization has. A thinking which imo is not based on any recent experience he's had. Plus it is illogical. Many people begin and continue TM and have nothing to do with the org. On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:40 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: Share Long sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Heretical Heresy turq, you said you would recommend TM with conditions. Why would you, if those conditions were met, recommend it? This is a nonsensical question, Share. TM can IMO *never* be taught in a fashion that could meet my criteria for ethicality (at least if taught within the TMO), if for no other reason than it is taught by a group of people who have been indoctrinated for decades into unethical teaching. Their allegiance to the group, how it is perceived, and how prosperous it is renders them incapable of developing a higher allegiance to the welfare of the student. Let's propose an example. I think that a somewhat good start ethical way of teaching TM would be to tell each prospective student what Maharishi himself said about the nature of the mantras, and that the ceremony that they *have* to participate in to learn is a bastardized form of an ancient Hindu ceremony in which both teacher and student bow down to Hindu gods and goddesses. They should also state up front that TM is viewed within the TMO itself as merely a starter technique, and that they will be pressured to learn the TM-Sidhis and buy all sorts of additional add-on products. Do you honestly believe that could ever happen? At least within the TMO itself?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Graphing the Illumined Batgap interviewees by types
I know nothing about Rymer, but what you describe of his interactions with Maharishi was also true of Robin. There was no conflict between Robin and Maharishi until he showed up with his group (of mostly TM teachers) in Fairfield--seven years or so after he had first claimed enlightenment--and tried to portray himself as the new leader of the TMO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I have to say Barry, when I hear you talk about your experiences in California as as Regional or State Coordinator, it doesn't jibe with my experience in the Midwest, as it pertains to keeping people off course etc. You paint a very severe and petty picture which I do not recognize. P.S. As regards Andy Rymer, as I've reported here previously, during the time I saw him interact with Maharishi, which was around 1977, it was always a very affectionate interaction. There was no competition going on. P.S.S. As regards this ostracizing of anyone who claims to have reached enlightenment, I suspect the protocols in the TM Movement were similar to most any student/teacher relationship in the eastern tradition. But it isn't surprising that you would try to paint this relationship in the worst possible way as it pertains to the TMO. Let's face it, that is what constitutes about 80% of your participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I can confirm what Curtis says here, from my earlier Regional Office and State Coordinator days. Other than conducting a Black Mass in the TM center, *nothing* was as likely to get you on Maharishi's Shit List and exiled forever from the movement than announcing your enlightenment. It was an instantaneous way to be dropped from all mailing lists, be barred from any courses, and be shunned by all concerned. As Curtis suggests, this is pretty odd behavior for a group that promises the fastest path to enlightenment. Several scholars who have specialized in the study of spiritual groups have proposed as one of their primary definitions of a cult the tendency to denigrate any student who claims to have achieved what only the leader is supposed to have achieved, and promote the idea that Nobody graduates. This is seen by many of them as *the* most defining characteristic of a controlling cult.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Witnessing
Interestingly, neither of you addressed my point about Xeno's paragraph, much less refuted it. Xeno is obviously not a TM-TB. When he describes his own experience, he's clearly not rehashing Maharishi's teaching. But the paragraph I quoted from his post (below) is an instance of Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness, the corollary to Knowledge is structured in consciousness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 5/17/2014 8:11 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The first paragraph here is a good example of what Maharishi meant by Knowledge is structured in consciousness. If a person is not conscious, there would for him be no knowledge of any kind, philosophical, religious, or scientific. This is not a matter of debate because everyone already knows it to be a fact of common experience. C: Agreed. This is the obvious part that makes the statement a circular definition like awareness is being aware. R: If consciousness was just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the nervous system it would not be a fundamental of nature - it would just be an effect, not a cause. C: Yes and we have a lot of evidence for our awareness being affected by chemicals, so it is not primary to the brain's function. R: But, in the ancient Indian view, everything that exists - matter and material - arise from the field of consciousness. The brain is a product of consciousness, not vice-versa. C: This is where Maharishi's teaching gets squirrelly. He basically claims that both are true depending on his audience he emphasizes one or the other. To impress scientists he sounds like a materialist, to sound more woo woo for his followers he emphasizes consciousness. In symposiums he would often get caught in the middle of his attempt to run both views with embarrassing results. R:This duality, which consists of subject and object, is a mere vibration of consciousness. Pure consciousness is ultimately objectless; hence, it is declared to be eternally without relations. - Mandukya Karika IV.72 C: I don't find that conceptually meaningful although it is nice poetry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote : While alive, everybody has experience, consciousness. So 'something' is making the content of experience visible. There is always a 'witness'. The mind's interpretation of what this so-called witness is changes with practice (whichever one or ones are being used). The 24/7 kind of inner witnessing is one of those stages of change that many experience. My experience is that it basically evaporated, almost like it became a mist and soaked into the world of outer experience as if the outer world was a sponge and just vanished, that is, the so-called witness becomes identical with all other experience, with thought, objects, and action. So one cannot say 'I' am witnessing. At this point witnessing has no centre, no location, it is no longer like a receiver of experience, like an homunculus, like a little man in your head watching stuff. Descriptions and models of consciousness completely break down at this point, they are of no use because it is not possible to formulate a model that includes everything; the only thing that makes it intelligible in some way is the experience itself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Not Repsonsible
Wrong by what criteria? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : There are many things that still surprise me about the things that long-term TM TBs believe and that I no longer believe, but I admit to having been somewhat taken aback yesterday at Lawson's seemingly unquestioning acceptance of what he was told about the nature of enlightenment. That is, that (according to MMY) once one is enlightened, a person cannot possibly do any wrong, because all of their actions are run by God, or the Laws Of Nature, or whatever/whomever they believe is pulling the strings.
[FairfieldLife] Wired.com debunks lucid dreaming study
Psychologists Give People Control of Their Dreams Using Brain Stimulation. Really? | Science Blogs | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/psychologists-give-people-control-of-their-dreams-using-brain-stimulation-really/?cid=social_20140512_23745144 http://www.wired.com/2014/05/psychologists-give-people-control-of-their-dreams-using-brain-stimulation-really/?cid=social_20140512_23745144 Psychologists Give People Control of Their Dreams U... http://www.wired.com/2014/05/psychologists-give-people-control-of-their-dreams-using-brain-stimulation-really/?cid=social_20140512_23745144 In a study out this week, a team of psychologists led by Ursula Voss at the J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt, claim to have given non lucid-dreamers the power of... View on www.wired.com http://www.wired.com/2014/05/psychologists-give-people-control-of-their-dreams-using-brain-stimulation-really/?cid=social_20140512_23745144 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on witnessing
The reason you get attacked, Barry, is that you're so fucking nasty in sharing your great wisdom with us. You make all kinds of gratuitously demeaning assumptions about the TMers here, many if not most of which are simply not true; and you consistently exalt yourself as superior. Plus which, many of your ideas are shallow and poorly thought out, not to mention repeated over and over and OVER again. You pretend to be doing all this to be helpful, but that's bullshit. You do it because you get off on insulting people. You may have earned the right to challenge ideas, but you haven't earned the right to dump on the people who hold them. Here's the FFL dynamic, as I see it. I and a few others labeled as critics make a few statements challenging the sense of elitism and entitlement and specialness that TMers have been taught to feel about themselves. They react *not* to the actual points we raise, but by attacking us personally, and trying to get us. And by trying to encourage others to attack us, too. We challenge *ideas*, and they try to attack *us*. I am merely presenting alternative points of view on a number of subjects relative to the world of meditation, self discovery, and pursuit of that crazy thing some call enlightenment. They are in fact often my points of view, although they are not always my *only* points of view on the subjects. I feel I have *earned* these points of view on the basis of long experience with TM, the TMO, with other spiritual traditions, and as the result of a lifetime's worth of questioning pretty much *everything* and attempting to see it in new and interesting ways. I contend that trying to shoot the messenger rather than dealing with the message itself is a pretty puny and lazy-ass way of presenting oneself as spiritual. If that's the only intellectual tool these TMers have in their arsenal after all these decades of practice, it really doesn't say much about the value of the TM technique and philosophy, does it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Not Repsonsible
One more time: What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior? What if, just as those who described it in the past have said, it is purely about consciousness, having the ability to directly perceive eternality 24/7, and that ability has *absolutely nothing* to do with what is going on simultaneously in terms of personality and behavior? --Barry Wright, awhile back on alt.m.t Barry hit the nail on the head. This post is pure gold. (snip) The idea which is nearly universally present amongst both the eastern guru movements and the new age and Eckhart Tolle style I am awakened, not enlightened crowd that being enlightened or awakened has nothing to do with behavior is complete bullshit.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis, on witnessing
Demeaning the TMO is one thing. Demeaning the TMers here is quite another. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Funny thing this, I do TM twice a day and have never felt demeaned by a Barry rap on the TMO, in fact I agree with a lot of it as I worked there too and saw much unwitting (perhaps) cultish behaviour and plain gullibility and stupidity from my fellow devotees. Much of B's three posts on the subject today rang true, I know people still who don't do exercise because they think it will stress them in some way. I knew people who believe the secret to long life is not breathing too much. Seems to me that you can believe whatever crap you like about meditation and enlightenment, it won't make it any more or less likely. You've got it or you haven't I suspect. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : The reason you get attacked, Barry, is that you're so fucking nasty in sharing your great wisdom with us. You make all kinds of gratuitously demeaning assumptions about the TMers here, many if not most of which are simply not true; and you consistently exalt yourself as superior. Plus which, many of your ideas are shallow and poorly thought out, not to mention repeated over and over and OVER again. You pretend to be doing all this to be helpful, but that's bullshit. You do it because you get off on insulting people. You may have earned the right to challenge ideas, but you haven't earned the right to dump on the people who hold them. Here's the FFL dynamic, as I see it. I and a few others labeled as critics make a few statements challenging the sense of elitism and entitlement and specialness that TMers have been taught to feel about themselves. They react *not* to the actual points we raise, but by attacking us personally, and trying to get us. And by trying to encourage others to attack us, too. We challenge *ideas*, and they try to attack *us*. I am merely presenting alternative points of view on a number of subjects relative to the world of meditation, self discovery, and pursuit of that crazy thing some call enlightenment. They are in fact often my points of view, although they are not always my *only* points of view on the subjects. I feel I have *earned* these points of view on the basis of long experience with TM, the TMO, with other spiritual traditions, and as the result of a lifetime's worth of questioning pretty much *everything* and attempting to see it in new and interesting ways. I contend that trying to shoot the messenger rather than dealing with the message itself is a pretty puny and lazy-ass way of presenting oneself as spiritual. If that's the only intellectual tool these TMers have in their arsenal after all these decades of practice, it really doesn't say much about the value of the TM technique and philosophy, does it?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Not Repsonsible
Comments below... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : I wasn't commenting on what Barry had previously said on other forums You didn't know that he had said this. - I was and am addressing what he said here, today. And if you want to throw down on someone for changing their story, whey not start with Mahesh Prasad Varmint. I'm not throwing down on Barry. I just thought you might find it of interest that he's done a 180 on that particular point. I didn't realize that would make him a scumbag like Maharishi in your eyes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Jeez. Talk about a river in Egypt. Talk about a guilty conscience. Talk about projection. Talk about shooting the messengers (good point, Steve). Talk about out-of-control reactive! This rap is for those long-term FFL members who claim that their continuing *personal attacks* against those who raise questions about the beliefs and behaviors of long-term TMers are for noble, altruistic, and non-self-serving reasons. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. (snip lots more garbage) Continuing to attack us personally because we use this forum AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED raises more questions about YOUR sanity and YOUR motives than it does ours. This forum was NOT intended to be used to personally attack TMers. As I said in a previous post, you may have earned the right to challenge ideas, but you haven't earned the right to dump on the people who hold them. It's your behavior that's the problem, not your challenges to ideas. Doesn't matter whether it's TM, or politics, or feminism, or theism, or the Grateful Dead, or America. You virtually always use your challenges as vehicles for personal attacks on FFLers, usually TMers, and for exalting yourself. It really is nauseating, as Ann observed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Somehow I don't think Ann was listing what she thought were attacks on her livelihood. Somehow I don't think Barry thinks that either. Ann was presenting Steve with a list of Barry's attacks on her that apparently don't bother Steve. And that embarrasses Barry, as well it should after hysterically complaining about attacks on him. (Goodness knows I could compile a much longer list of Barry's insults, including attacks on my livelihood.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Jesus Barry, settle down. You realize you sound like someone who has seriously gotten his buttons pushed. We are just presenting different points of view. It's all good. The only thing that bothers me are the vicious personal attacks on people's livelihoods, including many things that have been directed at you and especially Curtis. I have been called the following things by Bawee: a cultist a bitch Squeaky Fromme a stalker dumb as a bag of hammers ugly fat a cunt too rich spoiled Judy's minion That's all I can remember for the moment... Which one of these represents an attack on your livelihood? Just curious... I mean, Steve just got done saying that It's all good, and that the only thing that bothers *him* are the attacks on a person's ability to earn a living. Thus it strikes me as odd that you're delivering this list to him. Do all of these words constitute livelihoods in your mind? If so, I wonder if you could do us all a favor and provide a pay rate (in Canadian dollars per hour, current figures) opposite each of the entries above. I think it would make for an interesting thread. And I doubt I'm the only person who is interested in how much Judy pays her minions. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: When people can't tell the difference...
I don't recognize B as representative of any criticism you've ever made, Barry. Yours almost always include insulting comments about the person you're addressing. A. I think that you are a low-life, scum-sucking, dog-humping bastard. B. I think that the spiritual teacher / celebrity / political candidate you seem enamored of is fundamentally wrong in his/her thinking, and here's why. Isn't it fascinating the number of people who respond to B as if A had been said? And with the same degree of anger, faux outrage, and need to strike back as if A had actually been said?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
As if you never wrote insulting screeds about me or Ann in an attempt to get FFL members to dislike us because you dislike us. Talk about hypocrisy... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: authfriend@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes Somehow I don't think Ann was listing what she thought were attacks on her livelihood. Somehow I don't think Barry thinks that either. Ann was presenting Steve with a list of Barry's attacks on her that apparently don't bother Steve. In other words, she was actively attempting to get someone on this forum to not like someone she doesn't like. Exactly what I said about the Vedic Vigilantes. Thank you for supporting my thesis. (Goodness knows I could compile a much longer list of Barry's insults, including attacks on my livelihood.) And you don't hold grudges. Rght. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Jesus Barry, settle down. You realize you sound like someone who has seriously gotten his buttons pushed. We are just presenting different points of view. It's all good. The only thing that bothers me are the vicious personal attacks on people's livelihoods, including many things that have been directed at you and especially Curtis. I have been called the following things by Bawee: a cultist a bitch Squeaky Fromme a stalker dumb as a bag of hammers ugly fat a cunt too rich spoiled Judy's minion That's all I can remember for the moment... Which one of these represents an attack on your livelihood? Just curious... I mean, Steve just got done saying that It's all good, and that the only thing that bothers *him* are the attacks on a person's ability to earn a living. Thus it strikes me as odd that you're delivering this list to him. Do all of these words constitute livelihoods in your mind? If so, I wonder if you could do us all a favor and provide a pay rate (in Canadian dollars per hour, current figures) opposite each of the entries above. I think it would make for an interesting thread. And I doubt I'm the only person who is interested in how much Judy pays her minions. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Missed this second bit of incredible hypocrisy, from the dude who wrote almost 750 words of screeching complaint earlier today about TMers attacking and insulting him: (Goodness knows I could compile a much longer list of Barry's insults, including attacks on my livelihood.) And you don't hold grudges. Rght. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Barry has demeaned my livelihood many times. I can't recall ever demeaning his. And how is this not what you're referring to? (BTW, do you know who Squeaky Fromme was?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Sure, calling people names is just juvenile.* Coming after one's family, or demeaning one's livelihood**, is, in my opinion way out of bounds. * For the record, I would never be insulted if someone called me Squeaky Fromme. (-: ** Yes, we see it with Barry sometimes doing it with Judy and vice-versa to some extent. But that is not what I am referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I have been called the following things by Bawee: a cultist a bitch Squeaky Fromme a stalker dumb as a bag of hammers ugly fat a cunt too rich spoiled Judy's minion That's all I can remember for the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: We need to ask
If that was a dome announcement, Buck should be able to tell us what it was about. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, j_alexander_stanley@... wrote : Ok, that was weird. The guy subscribed this morning. Made one post. And unsubscribed. Oh well, it must have meant something to him. Or maybe he suddenly realised where he was! Good one! Will we ever know. Sounds a little ominous to me actually. I hope we don't hear of any 'mishaps' in the Domes tonight. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jamesm227-investigation@... wrote : We need to ask that only those on the Creating Coherence Program remain in the dome at this time. If anyone has any questions about security, please stand.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Fromme was also a member of the Manson Family, BTW. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Sure, calling people names is just juvenile.* Coming after one's family, or demeaning one's livelihood**, is, in my opinion way out of bounds. * For the record, I would never be insulted if someone called me Squeaky Fromme. (-: ** Yes, we see it with Barry sometimes doing it with Judy and vice-versa to some extent. But that is not what I am referring to. I never said I was insulted by Bawee. I said I have been called the following... by him. You have to actually respect someone to find that they can, in fact, effect or insult you. At least that is my experience. He used the Squeaky Fromme reference in the context of me stalking Robin. Squeaky attempted to assassinate a President. Comparing me to a would-be murderer is rather interesting, don't you think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Oh, well, no, I haven't, actually. I've done that very rarely. What an imagination you have! I have said I think his writing skills mask his lack of depth, but that's a criticism of his thinking ability, not his writing ability. He has certainly many times asserted that I can't write. Which is fine; I'm an editor, I don't pretend to be a writer. I'm able to express myself here to my own satisfaction. But he believes editing is an unskilled profession that I should be ashamed of, much to my amusement. No doubt he'll weigh in overnight at some length on this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, Barry is a writer by profession, and you have many times taken issue with his writing abilities as demonstrated here. That is what I was referring to in regards to that. But there is a difference in saying that so and so's writing lacks creativity, and some of very personal attacks we sometimes see here. For me, there is a difference. For others, perhaps not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry has demeaned my livelihood many times. I can't recall ever demeaning his. And how is this not what you're referring to? (BTW, do you know who Squeaky Fromme was?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Sure, calling people names is just juvenile.* Coming after one's family, or demeaning one's livelihood**, is, in my opinion way out of bounds. * For the record, I would never be insulted if someone called me Squeaky Fromme. (-: ** Yes, we see it with Barry sometimes doing it with Judy and vice-versa to some extent. But that is not what I am referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I have been called the following things by Bawee: a cultist a bitch Squeaky Fromme a stalker dumb as a bag of hammers ugly fat a cunt too rich spoiled Judy's minion That's all I can remember for the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: One Hundred Meditators! The Light Brigade Deploys to Ukraine
Did you miss Xeno's post, Buck? The charge of the Light Brigade was a disaster. They were mistakenly sent against a force they were not equipped to fight and were mowed down in great numbers. They had to retreat with no military gain. Even though it was obvious they were headed for ignominious defeat, nobody objected to the order. Essentially, they were brave but stupid. Oh, and the Light in Light Brigade means lightweight. It doesn't refer to something that shines. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Creating Coherence and Harmony in the Collective Consciousness in the World for Peace and Unity in all the Nations. One Hundred Meditators, traveling leagues, a league, half a league onward, to meditate in the valley of Death the Crimea, come the hundred to meditate: Forward, came the Light Brigade of meditators! 'Forward, the Light Brigade of Meditators!' Was there a meditator dismay'd ? Knowing of themselves their own experience transcendent and the science so, theirs not to make reply, theirs not to reason why, theirs but to meditate. Into the valley of Death Crimea came the hundred meditators. Cannon to right of them, Tanks to left of them, Cannon in front of them. Boldly they came in peace and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell came the hundred meditating. When can their glory fade? Om the wild charge they make in meditation together for Peace! In meditation together for peace! All the world wonders. Honour the charge they make! Honour this Light Brigade, the Noble One Hundred Meditators! In Paraphrase, -Buck in the Dome In Support! Practicing Meditators in Fairfield, Iowa abide by the deployment of the one hundred meditators gone to Crimea too! Let us pull together meditating in support of the Hundred and peace in all Europe, over even to the Crimea and around the whole world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic Vigilantes
Oh, I don't know, I suppose decent is as good a term as any. Just not special. Better than most of the posters on FFL. But he's a hack writer, not an artist. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Oh, okay, thank you for making that distinction. I guess what is unsaid is that you must feel that he is a decent writer. I'd say that he is quite a good writer myself. I may disagree with some of the conclusions he comes up with, but as far his writing, I think it's pretty good. And of course, I guess, so does the marketplace ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Oh, well, no, I haven't, actually. I've done that very rarely. What an imagination you have! I have said I think his writing skills mask his lack of depth, but that's a criticism of his thinking ability, not his writing ability. He has certainly many times asserted that I can't write. Which is fine; I'm an editor, I don't pretend to be a writer. I'm able to express myself here to my own satisfaction. But he believes editing is an unskilled profession that I should be ashamed of, much to my amusement. No doubt he'll weigh in overnight at some length on this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Well, Barry is a writer by profession, and you have many times taken issue with his writing abilities as demonstrated here. That is what I was referring to in regards to that. But there is a difference in saying that so and so's writing lacks creativity, and some of very personal attacks we sometimes see here. For me, there is a difference. For others, perhaps not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Barry has demeaned my livelihood many times. I can't recall ever demeaning his. And how is this not what you're referring to? (BTW, do you know who Squeaky Fromme was?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Sure, calling people names is just juvenile.* Coming after one's family, or demeaning one's livelihood**, is, in my opinion way out of bounds. * For the record, I would never be insulted if someone called me Squeaky Fromme. (-: ** Yes, we see it with Barry sometimes doing it with Judy and vice-versa to some extent. But that is not what I am referring to. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : I have been called the following things by Bawee: a cultist a bitch Squeaky Fromme a stalker dumb as a bag of hammers ugly fat a cunt too rich spoiled Judy's minion That's all I can remember for the moment...
[FairfieldLife] Re: One Hundred Meditators! The Light Brigade Deploys to Ukraine
Uh, Buck, that the charge of the Light Brigade was a disaster rather than a triumph isn't exactly a detail. It's a tragic story about foolish, mindless bravery that resulted in unnecessary suffering and death and didn't accomplish anything. It's about the worst model for a TM mission to Crimea I can think of. You should be praying you haven't put a curse on it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Thanks I do appreciate all that and for anyone who does not know history that way it should be said. But also being way too literal in nature here obsessing the details can get in the way of another good story otherwise. One hundred meditators. Knowing the Transformative Power of the Unified Field Transcendent in the human physiology, it works. I feel it is heroic and admirable what these meditators have willfully set off to do, in the Crimea. Joy, Enjoy it, -Buck in the Dome Authfriend writes: Did you miss Xeno's post, Buck? The charge of the Light Brigade was a disaster. They were mistakenly sent against a force they were not equipped to fight and were mowed down in great numbers. They had to retreat with no military gain. Even though it was obvious they were headed for ignominious defeat, nobody objected to the order. Essentially, they were brave but stupid. Oh, and the Light in Light Brigade means lightweight. It doesn't refer to something that shines. Creating Coherence and Harmony in the Collective Consciousness in the World for Peace and Unity in all the Nations. One Hundred Meditators, traveling leagues, a league, half a league onward, to meditate in the valley of Death the Crimea, come the hundred to meditate: Forward, came the Light Brigade of meditators! 'Forward, the Light Brigade of Meditators!' Was there a meditator dismay'd ? Knowing of themselves their own experience transcendent and the science so, theirs not to make reply, theirs not to reason why, theirs but to meditate. Into the valley of Death Crimea came the hundred meditators. Cannon to right of them, Tanks to left of them, Cannon in front of them. Boldly they came in peace and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell came the hundred meditating. When can their glory fade? Om the wild charge they make in meditation together for Peace! In meditation together for peace! All the world wonders. Honour the charge they make! Honour this Light Brigade, the Noble One Hundred Meditators! In Paraphrase, -Buck in the Dome In Support! Practicing Meditators in Fairfield, Iowa abide by the deployment of the one hundred meditators gone to Crimea too! Let us pull together meditating in support of the Hundred and peace in all Europe, over even to the Crimea and around the whole world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Maharishi Laughing (sound only)
Your link is unclickable, Dick. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dickmays@... wrote : Maharishi laughing about the “merry-go-round” of life!
