--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_re...@... wrote:
Veru nice little story, thanks.
It depends. For example, what if dad was a Christian Scientist
telling his diabetic daughter that prayer will heal her, and he gives
her detailed explanations of the theories over and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
I know people who think Shakespeare is boring,
that opera is just a lot of screeching, and that
anybody could splatter paint on a piece of canvas
and create a painting as good as anything Jackson
Pollock ever did.
Here,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
I think it helps to realize what people were
taught ABOUT the things they were taught. They
were not merely claims or theories, they were
the highest knowledge. EVERY other teaching by
EVERY other spiritual group in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
snip
There's a high amount of cognitive dissonance
I've noticed in addition when you refuse to use
common TM-org buzzwords for describing your own
experience--which often come with a lot of
accumulated baggage and instead
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@...
wrote:
snip
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and
dismissive. I am confident enough in myself to
know that I am neither.
From my end, I find it frustrating when some
TMers assume that my thinking is flawed or I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
snip
Ruth, here's a fun thing to do if you ever run
into such a person in real life (or even the
next time you run into them on this board). When
the person suggests that you just don't
understand, say to them:
Just to
Some people just feel better when they have
someone to talk to, Jim.
Jim wrote:
Perhaps The Turq puts in the equal amount of
time in groups related to Lentz? I'm surprized
he has time for walking his dog.
Perhaps, but one thing is fer sure, when you have
a lot of dogs and a lot of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willy...@... wrote:
Some people just feel better when they have
someone to talk to, Jim.
Jim wrote:
Perhaps The Turq puts in the equal amount of
time in groups related to Lentz? I'm surprized
he has time for walking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Curtis, if you're going to paraphrase me, please try
to be accurate. I didn't invite someone to believe
anything. I suggested they leave their minds open a
crack to the possibility there were some
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Curtis, if you're going to paraphrase me, please try
to be accurate. I didn't invite someone to believe
anything. I suggested they leave their minds open a
crack to the possibility there were some
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:12 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
I find it odd that I am assumed to be smug when all I say is that I
understand the theories and I don't agree. Is not agreeing smug? I
also find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my thinking is
flawed or I don't get certain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am
confident enough in myself to know that I am neither.
For the record, I suspect that most people here
know it, too. Smug and dismissive is the claim
that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am
confident enough in myself to know that I am neither.
From my end, I find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my
thinking is flawed or I don't
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:52 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
Jibes aside, I'm with you, and even more with
Curtis on this one. Maharishi's teachings are by
far the most superficial, repetitive, and non-
convincing of any I have ever encountered in
the spiritual smorgasbord. Ever. Think what it
says about
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-snip-
Maharishi's teachings are by
far the most superficial, repetitive, and non-
convincing of any I have ever encountered in
the spiritual smorgasbord. Ever. Think what it
says about the mental capacity of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
I don't know that you would continue if you got
TM, but wonder if you have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the key to understanding the Maharishi is to do his technique, not
for 5 or 10 years, but at least 20 years, 2x per day.
Just for fun, I should point out that this is being
said by someone who is incapable of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am
confident enough in myself to know that I am neither.
From my end, I find it frustrating when some TMers assume that my
thinking is flawed or I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:12 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
I find it odd that I am assumed to be smug when all I say is that I
understand the theories and I don't agree. Is not agreeing smug? I
also find it frustrating when
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Jibes aside, I'm with you, and even more with
Curtis on this one. Maharishi's teachings are by
far the most superficial, repetitive, and non-
convincing of any I have ever encountered in
the spiritual
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:12 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
I find it odd that I am assumed to be smug when all I say is that I
understand the theories and I don't agree. Is not agreeing smug? I
also find it frustrating when
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I can certainly say it, about *any* teacher I've
ever read or worked with, and about *everything*
that I believe in. I suspect you can, too. It's
just the bottom line of having the intellectually
open mind that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
[...]
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am
confident enough in myself to know that I am neither.
From my end, I find it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until you can look me in the eye and honestly say that
your world view has been so shattered that you cried
so hard it riped a hole in your body and your guts fell out,
don't talk to me about admitting what I believe
just for fun, this is being said by someone who sets themselves up
as a petty tyrant on this board, who is incapable of clearly
articulating themselves on any spiritual topic related to TM, and
just for fun, writes crap like this. let's ignore him, just for fun.
oh wait...:-)
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just for fun, this is being said by someone who sets themselves up
as a petty tyrant on this board, who is incapable of clearly
articulating themselves on any spiritual topic related to TM, and
just for fun,
Please explain to us why you can't just say
when and where you learned TM and the siddhis.
And if you have indeed learned TM, please state whether or not you have done it
twice a day for twenty years. :)
Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only
love.
-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_reply@ wrote:
the key to understanding the Maharishi is to do his technique, not
for 5 or 10 years, but at least 20 years, 2x per day.
Just for fun, I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
[...]
Jibes aside, I'm with you, and even more with
Curtis on this one.
Yep (goes both ways though).
Lawson
What I find utterly fascinating
Jim wrote:
What I find utterly fascinating with this
Turq character is that 30 years after he
stopped TM he still can't stop talking about
it, literally day out and day, year after
year here on FFL. Makes you wonder if his
life somehow stopped overnight when he quit -
and what a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
no_reply@ wrote:
just for fun, this is being said by someone who sets themselves
up
as a petty tyrant on this board, who is incapable of clearly
---I totally agree! I'm convinced she's the same Sunyata. I've
asked her about 5 times at least to say something - anything at all -
regarding her experiences having gone through CC, BC, and the UC; but
all she has to say is Being, Being. In addition, Lakshmanjoo
mentions at least 4
TurquoiseB wrote:
I learned TM from Jerry Jarvis in L.A. in
1968. I learned the TM-siddhis in St. Moritz
in 1977, on the same course that Shemp did.
All of this and a buck-fifty will buy me a
cup of bad coffee at Starbucks. It doesn't
make me qualified for anything at all.
Listen you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---I totally agree! I'm convinced she's the same Sunyata.
-snip-
awesome-- you and B. can get together for a bubble bath.
TurquoiseB wrote:
...I'll bet she can't tell us where and when
she learned them, either.
Richard wrote:
I find your pursuit of qualifications extremely
boorish and uninteresting...
In addition to being a world-class snowboarder and
scuba diver, Rama is a black belt...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
[...]
I find it odd that I am perceived as smug and dismissive. I am
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Until you can look me in the eye and honestly say that
your world view has been so shattered that you cried
so hard it riped a hole in your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
Shurg. I am not certain that you have honestly reviewed the
evidence (noted little
quote marks) even if you are unable to be honest with YOURSELF about
that point.
Lawson
You can't know one way or another.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Until you can look me in the eye and honestly say that
your world view
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim wrote:
What I find utterly fascinating with this
Turq character is that 30 years after he
stopped TM he still can't stop talking about
it, literally day out and day, year after
year here on FFL.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the possibility that the way
they understand what he taught may not be the only
way,
On Dec 8, 2008, at 6:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
fair enough. the way that i think about enlightenment is probably
different than most views on it, in that it has its validation in
action only, feet on the street, not concepts or thinking about
stuff.
But doesn't it serve as a filter for
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the possibility that the way
they understand what he taught may not be the only
way, and that there are certain insights they may
not have fully grasped.
Should we also
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the
On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, sparaig wrote:
Seriously, I think you are confusing intellectual confidence with
closed mindedness.
Intellectual confidence about things that we can't possibly be
certain of?
Sounds like closed-mindedness to me...
Oh, and I despise Jerry Falwell and his ilk,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the possibility that the way
they understand what he taught may not be the only
way,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the possibility that the way
they understand what he taught may not be the only
way,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it
Duveyoung wrote:
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and spiritual
vampires? Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit.
Bhairitu wrote:
Well the concept that was in the spiritual vampire book was pretty
much the same as what Turq was describing. Just somehow it was
labeled
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the possibility that the way
they understand what he taught may not be the only
way,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the
Great rap, Edg.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duveyoung wrote:
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and spiritual
vampires? Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit.
Bhairitu wrote:
Well the concept that was in the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY had it all wrong really ought to leave their
minds open a crack to the
Duveyoung wrote:
Duveyoung wrote:
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and spiritual
vampires? Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit.
Bhairitu wrote:
Well the concept that was in the spiritual vampire book was pretty
much the same as what Turq was describing. Just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
MMY
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, sparaig wrote:
Seriously, I think you are confusing intellectual confidence with
closed mindedness.
Intellectual confidence about things that we can't possibly be
certain of?
Sounds
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
Just as a general rule of thumb, people who think
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I don't know that you would continue if you got
TM, but wonder if you have anyway. THing is,
there isn't anything to get with TM. So, if
you're not finding it satsifying in some way, then
you might as well move on.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
I don't know that you would continue if you got
TM, but wonder if you have anyway. THing is,
there isn't anything to get with TM. So, if
you're
On Dec 9, 2008, at 7:33 PM, sparaig wrote:
I find it curious that you despise right-wing Christian
fundamentalists but you don't have the same aversion for right-wing
Hindu gurus who promote right-wing Hindu values, only under the
veneer of science. Would you have a better appreciation for
snip
Curtis, if you're going to paraphrase me, please try
to be accurate. I didn't invite someone to believe
anything. I suggested they leave their minds open a
crack to the possibility there were some insights
they hadn't grasped.
I did try but I am open to correction to understand what
200861
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a book on this back in the 1970's that my TM initiator
recommended. I didn't buy a copy but read the section he had
mentioned on it.
Don't know such a book; this was a rap from
one of the teachers I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
200861
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
There was a book on this back in the 1970's that my TM initiator
recommended. I didn't buy a copy but read the section he had
mentioned on
TurquoiseB wrote:
200861
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a book on this back in the 1970's that my TM initiator
recommended. I didn't buy a copy but read the section he had
mentioned on it.
Don't know such a book; this was a
Bhairitu wrote:
Actually the book referred to Spiritual Vampires but it was the
same idea.
Bhairitu,
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and spiritual
vampires?
Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit.
A nuance only -- nothing practical heremove along folks.
Edg
Duveyoung wrote:
Bhairitu wrote:
Actually the book referred to Spiritual Vampires but it was the
same idea.
Bhairitu,
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and spiritual
vampires?
Seems to me that attention is prior to spirit.
A nuance only -- nothing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duveyoung wrote:
=Bhairitu wrote:
Actually the book referred to Spiritual Vampires but it
was the same idea.
Bhairitu,
Do you see a difference between attention vampires and
spiritual vampires?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm wondering, amidst all this nothing
practical stuff, is why you guys are talking
about spirit or spiritual as if it's a
thing that exists.
Show me one.
I'll wait.
Attention can be measured. Spirit is a
TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm wondering, amidst all this nothing
practical stuff, is why you guys are talking
about spirit or spiritual as if it's a
thing that exists.
Show me one.
I'll wait.
Attention can be
TurquoiseB wrote:
I doubt that we could get any two people on this
forum to agree on what the word spiritual means.
The term is commonly used to refer to a supernatural
being which is transcendent and therefore metaphysical
in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit
Middle English,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
These studies have *nothing* whatsoever to
to with *abstract* terms and *abstract*
notions like spirit and spiritual and
spirituality. They are very much grounded,
here and now, in everyday
TurquoiseB wrote:
These studies have *nothing* whatsoever to
to with *abstract* terms and *abstract*
notions like spirit and spiritual and
spirituality. They are very much grounded,
here and now, in everyday reality. They have
to do with things that can be seen, felt,
touched, measured,
TurquoiseB wrote:
It's just that one of the reasons I like the occult
is for its very precision, and the way that it avoids
all these amorphous terms like spirit and spiritual
that people throw around without ever defining them...
Apparently, the Turq is talking about 'science', not the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
...They dealt with real here and now stuff
and with techniques that could be practiced and
benefitted from *without believing in anything*.
You know...the way TM was supposed to be, but
wasn't. :-)
-snip-
i
the
tmo, etc. and then after some interest in all of that, it all began to
fade away again, and here i am, with a much richer life, but without
even the tm-sidhis program i learned, just doing the 20x2 practice i
learned originally.
Hey E.D.
That was an interesting post. One of the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the
tmo, etc. and then after some interest in all of that, it all
began to
fade away again, and here i am, with a much richer life, but
without
even the tm-sidhis program i learned, just doing the 20x2
what is your current view on enlightenment?
Thanks for answering. Most of my exposure to the concept was through
Maharishi. When I was doing his programs I felt satisfied that I was
growing in the experiences he discussed, so I understand the appeal.
Now I don't value those experiences the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what is your current view on enlightenment?
Thanks for answering. Most of my exposure to the concept was
through
Maharishi. When I was doing his programs I felt satisfied that I
was
growing in the
fair enough. the way that i think about enlightenment is probably
different than most views on it, in that it has its validation in
action only, feet on the street, not concepts or thinking about
stuff.
But doesn't it serve as a filter for what happens in your life? For
example if you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fair enough. the way that i think about enlightenment is probably
different than most views on it, in that it has its validation in
action only, feet on the street, not concepts or thinking about
stuff.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fair enough. the way that i think about enlightenment is
probably
different than most views on it, in that it has its validation
in
action only, feet on the street, not concepts or thinking about
stuff.
Really excellent discussion all around; and this last post is really
well said.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fair enough. the way that i think about enlightenment is probably
different than most views on it, in that it has its
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
I wholeheartedly agree that validation of
enlightenment is in action. One error of
the TMO is use of the word perfect. I do
not believe that lives will be lived in
perfect health, with all decisions
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 7, 2008, at 4:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
One of the things I cannot help but notice, having
been exposed to views of spirituality other than the
ones dealt with in TM, is that the TM view often
seems
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I so fondly remember my flying block at Cobb Mountain. This oriental
guy took off when we started our practice of our flying sutra. He
fell on his back
85 matches
Mail list logo
