[FairfieldLife] Shankara on maayaa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 By Sri Sankaracharya The Supreme Self (or Ultimate Reality) who is Pure Consciousness perceived Himself by Selfhood (i.e. Existence with I- Consciousness). He became endowed with the name I. From that arose the basis of difference. He exists verily in two parts, on account of which, the two could become husband and wife. Therefore, this space is ever filled up completely by the woman (or the feminine principle) surely. And He, this Supreme Self thought (or reflected). Thence, human beings were born. Thus say the Upanishads through the statement of sage Yajnavalkya to his wife. From the experience of bliss for a long time, there arose in the Supreme Self a certain state like deep sleep. From that (state) Maya (or the illusive power of the Supreme Self) was born just as a dream arises in sleep. This Maya is without the characteristics of (or different from) Reality or unreality, without beginning and dependent on the Reality that is the Supreme Self. She, who is of the form of the Three Guna (qualities or energies of Nature) brings forth the Universe with movable and immovable (objects). As for Maya, it is invisible (or not experienced by the senses). How can it produce a thing that is visible (or experienced by the senses)? How is a visible piece of cloth produced here by threads of invisible nature? Though the emission of ejaculate onto sleeping garments or bedclothes is yielded by the natural experience of copulation in a wet dream, the stain of the garment is perceived as real upon waking whilst the copulation and lovemaking was not true or real. Both sexual partners in the dream are unreal as they are but dream bodies, and the sexual union and conjugation was illusory, but the emission of the generative fluid was real. This is a metaphor for the resolution of duality into lucid unity. Thus Maya is invisible (or beyond sense-perception). (But) this universe which is its effect, is visible (or perceived by the senses). This would be Maya which, on its part, becomes the producer of joy by its own destruction. Like night (or darkness) Maya is extremely insurmountable (or extremely difficult to be understood). Its nature is not perceived here. Even as it is being observed carefully (or being investigated) by sages, it vanishes like lightning. Maya (the illusive power) is what is obtained in Brahman (or the Ultimate Reality). Avidya (or nescience or spiritual ignorance) is said to be dependent on Jiva (the individual soul or individualised consciousness). Mind is the knot which joins Consciousness and matter. Space enclosed by a pot, or a jar or a hut or a wall has their several appellations (eg.,pot space, jar space etc.). Like that, Consciousness (or the Self) covered here by Avidya (or nescience) is spoken of as jiva (the individual soul). Objection: How indeed could ignorance become a covering (or an obscure factor) for Brahman (or the Supreme Spirit) who is Pure Consciousness, as if the darkness arising from the night (could become a concealing factor) for the sun which is self-luminous? As the sun is hidden by clouds produced by the solar rays but surely, the character of the day is not hidden by those modified dense collection of clouds, so the Self, though pure, (or undefiled) is veiled for a long time by ignorance. But its power of Consciousness in living beings, which is established in this world, is not veiled.
[FairfieldLife] GyPSii demo on Nokia N95 (8 mins)
I guess Nokia is not very popular in the US, but perhaps some of you could comment on the usefulness/uselessness of this application, or whatever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweT57KCgc8 www.gypsii.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: How to stop GlobalBiz Fascism; step one.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Let those who feel they are qualified to fix it do so. But if you do, and the TM movement starts to display less silliness, you should know that you'll have deprived me of one of my favorite forms of entertainment. It'll be like my favorite soap opera was canceled. :-) Right on Turq. A number of years ago I was sending out a mailing for my business. Someone told me that there was a good direct mail place nearby but the problem was that the owner was a hetero-crossdresser who dressed as a woman on weekends but did business as a manicured, pony-tailed guy during the week. I told him thanks because now I could stop comparing places, I had found my vendor. When he acted surprised I told him Man I'm never gunna find another mailing company with the value-add of a crossdressing owner. Now that I know about this company all the others are just another boring business. Sure enough he/she did a great job and I never tired of what an interesting person he/she was. I left every meeting with a sense of wonder that the world is such a beautiful big place. I'll take interesting over conventional any day. May MMY and his Rajas live forever. Knowing about them makes my world much more fun. Turq and Curtis both endorse Rajas- Proof that the Rajas are bad news for the TMO ! Hey! I don't endorse them, I just laugh at them, and at the movement, as if it were a TV soap opera. As if. :-) Since I *like* to laugh, they serve a value. So did Jerry Lewis, for the French, but that doesn't mean that he was a great artist.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: Whatever Happened to 'We the People'? Lurk: We became wee the people. And our handlers are pushing Wii for the people to keep us distracted. Do they French see this happening? And, to add insult to injury, GyPSee is now GyPSii! :(
[FairfieldLife] Rolling Stone Almost Impossible Rock Quiz
The definitive test of whether or not you have a life is here. Something to do on a lazy Sunday. http://tinyurl.com/2dupjw http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17177243/the_almost_8212_impossible_rock_ _roll_quiz No bragging here. My mind is *full* of rock trivia, but it's clearly from another era of rock, because I found myself guessing at most of the questions, and even wondering who the heck these people were that I was supposed to know things about. I scored a mere 30. I am now officially old.
[FairfieldLife] SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
Anyone know, why are saaMkhya-suutra_s thought to be written as late as 14th or 15th century A.D? Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: 1 sAMkhyasUtra n. N. of six books of aphorisms of the SñSa1m2khya philosophy (ascribed to Kapila , but prob. written in the 14th or 15th century A.D.) [1199,2] ;
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany. Yes, I am blonde haired, blue eyed and beautiful too. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why would anyone listen to people who are saying they were s stupid in the past but now are correct, and we should listen to you? Ain't gonna happen people. Hate to bust your bubble folks, but no- one is listening to your whining Vaj, Turq., Mainstream, Shemp, etc. Keep whining about how you made such huge mistakes in your life and were really really stupid in the past and told everyone to listen to you back then, but now everyone should listen to you now. ROFLMAO ! Bunch of old jokers. No one is listening to your baby whining. OffWorld There must be something of value in the message of criticism of the TMO, for the messengers are attacked thusly: these people made huge mistakes made bad decisions made fools of themselves... and wasted yearsstupid mistake of theirsjackals here are saying... you idiots... they were s stupid... you made such huge mistakes in your life... were really really stupid... Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. OffWorld Judge, jury, and executioner ensuring obedience to the royal rule of rajas. May your permanent delusion of grandeur limit your range of influence to the frozen, barren, formerly productive corn fields now known as MVC. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. Well, see you folks, I'm off skiing for the the day, no snow at my house but plenty in the mountains here in Vermont. Wooh ! OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany. Yes, I am blonde haired, blue eyed and beautiful too. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. Your game also tends to involve, after several exchanges, challenging anyone who pushes your buttons and disagrees with you to a fist fight. They'd all kick your ass, of course, but still it's pretty classic Brown Shirt behavior.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic Jackpot: (subtitle here). --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. Read the whole essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Latin America: One country per week to gain invincibility through student Yogic Flyers
Well, I certainly hope this happens. I wish Dr. Alvarez the best. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this will be the last that we ever hear about this. MMY has trained his Rajas to be like him: they value the idea much more than the reality. --- michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Latin America: One country per week to gain invincibility through student Yogic Flyers by Global Good News staff writer Global Good News 24 November 2007 Dr Jose Luis Alvarez, Raja (Administrator) of Latin America for the Global Country of World Peace, observed that about one country per week will be rising to invincibility in his domain throughout the rest of this year, creating continental invincibility. Three countries have been chosen for structures to be built, Dr Alvarez outlined, 'in Paraguay, at the border of Bolivia; in the northeast of Brazil in a most precious foresta place of eternal spring; and in Venezuela near a national park in a very special area that has been donated. . . . These are three paradises which will be the basis of Global Ram Raj in Latin America. Dr Alvarez also noted that a live video conference to be seen by 13,000 students was planned, 'with all of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's knowledge, in the third week of November.' Dr Alvarez showed slides from Peru, where they currently have 700 Yogic Flyers who will be joined by another 250 next week, giving that nation many more than the 530 necessary to structure its invincibility. The slides showed large numbers of students learning Yoga postures, practicing Maharishi's Transcendental (TM) Meditation Technique together, and 'flying high, like very experienced Yogic Flyers.' In another picture they are listening to their teacher. Dr Alvarez said that after 30 years of teaching Maharishi's TM-Sidhi Programme, this is the most fulfilling experience for him. 'The students are reporting so much joy, peacefulness, and silence. They say they can touch the silence; and they are flying as if they are being pulled up to heaven. These are children 14 to 16 years old; and when they have free time on the weekend, they have seminars that they all want to go to. . . . Now all the adults want to be Yogic Flyers like their children. 'In Bolivia, on the other side of the lake, 500 more Yogic Flyers are ready; and in Colombia we have more than the invincibility number of 700 Yogic Flyers. In two weeks Chile will be rising to invincibility with 500 who are in the Yogic Flying course now. Ecuador will have 120 with another group starting soon; and Brazil is also starting a large group. 'For these children,' Dr Alvarez said in closing, 'it becomes very concrete. It is very simple for themthe experience of infinity within the silence. Each group raises the next, the whole country. Life in supreme happiness will be able to be lived. The ideal is being actualized by these children.' Copyright © 2007 Global Good News(sm) Service - Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[FairfieldLife] So you want to play God do ya?
http://tinyurl.com/2dlrgn This is so entertaining on so many levels. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Voting for anyone but Kucinich joke
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. Welcome to heaven, says St. Peter. Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you. No problem, just let me in, says the man. Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity. Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven, says the senator. I'm sorry, but we have our rules. And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. Now it's time to visit heaven. So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity. The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell. So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. I don't understand, stammers the senator. Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened? The devil looks at him, smiles and says, Yesterday we were campaigning Today you voted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic Jackpot: (subtitle here). Subtitle: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. Which may be a little misleading, since it seems that the whole point of the book is that we can't *tell* why. One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the book: So, how come existence? At the end of the day, all the approaches I have discussed are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they all seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate: a unique universe that just happens to permit life by a fluke; a stupendous number of alternative parallel universes that exist for no reason; a preexisting God who is somehow self-explanatory; or a self-creating, self-explaining, self- understanding universe-with observers, entailing backward causation and teleology. Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limitations of the human intellect. Amazon page: http://tinyurl.com/yuz3e3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany. Yes, I am blonde haired, blue eyed and beautiful too. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. Your game also tends to involve, after several exchanges, challenging anyone who pushes your buttons and disagrees with you to a fist fight. They'd all kick your ass, of course, but still it's pretty classic Brown Shirt behavior. Barry, who insists he himself is never to be taken seriously, has always had a bit of a problem recognizing when others don't intend for themselves to be taken seriously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. Note that, in Barry's mind, any vigorous disagreement with his own views is automatically angry and its motivations therefore suspect. Some might consider such a premise itself to be a tad fascistic (no need to cap the term in its generic sense, Barry). If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. I don't doubt for an instant that the supporters of a Barry Government would say precisely the same thing about its naysayers. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute. I don't think that's actually the bottom line of Angela's argument. In any case, as I've already pointed out, the threat posed to society by those willing to submit to authoritarian leaders is to be found with any sectarian group; but the sectarian groups among New Agers are all pitifully small and lacking in influence compared to those among adherents of the established religions, Christianity in particular.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the book: Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limitations of the [waking state]human intellect. There we go! Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just heard Paul Davies, the author of the op-ed piece, interviewed on NPR the other day. He's a philosopher-scientist with some very subtle reasoning skills. I'm planning to pick-up his book: The Cosmic Jackpot: (subtitle here). Thanks for the heads up. NPR has a great show archive so I can hear it. NPR rocks! --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. Read the whole essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of science course. To me he appears to be reifying the laws of physics. That is he's separating the physical universe from the laws that describe these relationships. The laws of physics are not things, they are higher-order explanations of ontological facts. Since we never have all the facts, the laws evolve over time as more and more facts are discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just don't get his point. --- hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality the laws of physics only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. Read the whole essay: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
Erik wrote: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers? Anyone know, why are saaMkhya-suutra_s thought to be written as late as 14th or 15th century A.D? Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: 1 sAMkhyasUtra n. N. of six books of aphorisms of the SñSa1m2khya philosophy (ascribed to Kapila , but prob. written in the 14th or 15th century A.D.) [1199,2] ; According to what I've read, Erik, the Samkhya Sutras are attributed to Kapila (the red one), however, the Samkhya tradition is much older than the 14th or 15th century when they were written down. Indian history begins with the historical Buddha, Shakya the Muni. Apparently the Buddha and Patanjali both ascribed to the Sankhya philosophy. This would indicate that Samkhya existed begore the 4th century B.C. There are some indications that the radical dualism of the Sankhya was derived from the Aryan language speakers who immigrated to Iran and to India. There is some indication that the Sankhya philosophy is the oldest philosophy in South Asia, or even the oldest in Asia. Yoga is the counterpart to the Sankhya. How so? Yogi Vasistha composed a short hymn on Yoga, and then the Buddha, namely Shakya the Muni, of Kapilavastu, perfected the art of multi-dimensional living: Shakya taught meditation based on causation and demonstrated a program called the Eight-fold Path leading to full Enlightenment. Sage Patanjali, who compiled the 'Yoga Sutras', salutes the Buddha as the wisest of men. Veda Vyasa has written a special commentary on the Maharishi Patanjali's Sutras. Mahraj Shree Shankaracharya has fortuitously prepared a very nice sub-commentary to Veda Vyasa's 'Vivarana' on the 'Yoga Sutras of Patanjali' which has recently been translated into English. Sage Patanjali says: Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind - Yoga citta vritti nirodha. I.1.2 In commenting on Bhagavad Gita, Maharishi has brought our attention to the fact that the concern of the Vedas is action, which in every case, is the result of the interplay of the gunas, i.e. the three constituents of relative nature, which are entirely separate from the Being or Purusha (Yogi 1964). Sage Kapila, Rishi Patanjali, Veda Vyasa, and the Acharyas Badarayana, Madhva, Ramanuja, Vallabha, and Nimbarka all agree on this. On the Bhagavad Gita By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi II., v. 45, p. 126 VI., v. 1, p. 384 Read more: Subject: They All Agreed Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Sun, Dec 16 2001 9:34 pm http://tinyurl.com/36x7j2 Also see Mullquist on Sanskrit kvikkies: Subject: Mull's Sanskrit kvikkies: sankhya -- saankhya Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Erik Date: Wed, Dec 20 2000 12:17 pm http://tinyurl.com/373xk4 sankhya 'number' saankhya 'pertaining to number'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity. I am tying to understand his point about science taking immutable laws as a given. I see it Richard's way so far. I don't see why this assumption is necessary. Practically speaking physicist don't test to see if gravity has changed each and every day. They may be relying on a working assumption that this law hasn't changed lately, but if it does and someone discovers that new law science will move with the new information. Science is uncovering how stuff operates. The assumption that stuff operates under laws isn't really necessary. But so far it seems as if there are predicable laws. His interjection of the question why into this observation is either going over my head (I don't get his point yet) or under my head (he is misapplying the word to an area of life where the word why is linguistically inappropriate). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From an op-ed by Paul Davies in the NY Times: The idea that the laws [of physics] exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. What physicists mean is that there is no reason the laws of physics are any particular way other than that if they were different the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to ascribe reason to them. It's no absurdity, they simply are as they are, if that level didn't exist as it does our level wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to say so. That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'See the grace of Guru Dev'
do.rflex wrote: Clapping? So, you read all the stuff from Maharishi, bought yourself some Hush Puppies and a cheap suit in order to get that initiator look, during your early days in the TMO when you were working for the Marshy, selling gibberish nonsense syllables to poor students; but WE are the gullible fawning sycophants. Go figure. So, what happened all the money?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Rory Goff writes snipped: But to know itself as Self is not like any other knowledge, which is indeed dualistic and based on a comparison, on an either-or discrimination. That's why this Self-knowledge is so mind-blowing -- literally. It is so ordinary and so special, so still and so dynamic, so Dead and so Alive, so *this* and so *that* -- so slippery, so concrete, so in- your-face paradoxical. Literally unimaginable, literally unspeakable. Yet it IS; I AM. Discrimination cannot capture it; discrimination can only surrender awe-struck. TomT: From Jean Klein Transmission of the Flame page 65 ...We have very often repeated that the seeker is the sought. An object is a fraction; it appears in your wholeness, in your globality. When you really come to the understanding that the seeker is the sought, there is a natural giving-up of all energy to find something. It is an instantaneous apperception. I don't say perception, because in perception there is a perceiver and something perceived. An apperception is an instantaneous perceiving of what is perceiving. So it can never be in relation of subject-object, just as an eye can never see its own seeing. ...you will find a glimpse of non-subject-object relationship. This glimpse is seen with your whole intelligence, which is there in the absence of the person, the thinker, the doer. Understanding, being the understanding, is enlightenment
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
TomT: From Jean Klein Transmission of the Flame page 65 snip Understanding, being the understanding, is enlightenment YES -- Understanding is probably a better word than Knowledge as Now we both figuratively and literally Under-stand ourSelf, and it is truly and simply a whole-body BEing. It is the rock-solid bottom of the inquiry, Under-standing itSelf :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of science course. To me he appears to be reifying the laws of physics. That is he's separating the physical universe from the laws that describe these relationships. The laws of physics are not things, they are higher-order explanations of ontological facts. Since we never have all the facts, the laws evolve over time as more and more facts are discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just don't get his point. As I understand his point, he's asking why there should be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we learn more is beside the point.) Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the laws of physics? It's similar to the old question, Why is there something rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, Why is there something orderly rather than something random? We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly as a given; but how is that different from taking the existence of God as a given? The only real difference is that religionists label the big question mark God, whereas science doesn't put a label on it. But that doesn't make the question disappear. Davies finds it odd that all of science rests on that unanswered question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti- reason about it. Lurk:: EXACTLY! And this is what Johhny Cochran meant when he said, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand his point, he's asking why there should be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we learn more is beside the point.) Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the laws of physics? It's similar to the old question, Why is there something rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, Why is there something orderly rather than something random? We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly as a given; but how is that different from taking the existence of God as a given? The only real difference is that religionists label the big question mark God, whereas science doesn't put a label on it. But that doesn't make the question disappear. Davies finds it odd that all of science rests on that unanswered question. I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly as a given; but how is that different from taking the existence of God as a given? But it wasn't a given in science. It is just something we are uncovering about the world by studying it using the scientific method. We didn't make it up from imagination, it provides the ability to predict behavior which is the hallmark of science. If we find out that areas of science don't follow orderliness science would incorporate that. Especially in the beginning days of using the scientific method, the orderliness of the universe was not a given. Now it is more like a useful assumption but it could all change with new information. This is completely different from religious assumptions which can't change no matter what evidence could be presented. Now his point that scientist are vulnerable to riding assumptions too far may have merit, but they are still not in the epistemological category of people believing mythologies of other cultures as facts. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of science course. To me he appears to be reifying the laws of physics. That is he's separating the physical universe from the laws that describe these relationships. The laws of physics are not things, they are higher-order explanations of ontological facts. Since we never have all the facts, the laws evolve over time as more and more facts are discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just don't get his point. As I understand his point, he's asking why there should be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we learn more is beside the point.) Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the laws of physics? It's similar to the old question, Why is there something rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, Why is there something orderly rather than something random? We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly as a given; but how is that different from taking the existence of God as a given? The only real difference is that religionists label the big question mark God, whereas science doesn't put a label on it. But that doesn't make the question disappear. Davies finds it odd that all of science rests on that unanswered question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: GyPSii demo on Nokia N95 (8 mins)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess Nokia is not very popular in the US, but perhaps some of you could comment on the usefulness/uselessness of this application, or whatever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweT57KCgc8 www.gypsii.com I didn't even have to watch a third of that to see that it has zero usefulness for me. The only features I wish my Motorola RAZR had are WiFi and a web browser.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity. I am tying to understand his point about science taking immutable laws as a given. I see it Richard's way so far. I don't see why this assumption is necessary. Practically speaking physicist don't test to see if gravity has changed each and every day. They may be relying on a working assumption that this law hasn't changed lately, but if it does and someone discovers that new law science will move with the new information. Science is uncovering how stuff operates. The assumption that stuff operates under laws isn't really necessary. But so far it seems as if there are predicable laws. His interjection of the question why into this observation is either going over my head (I don't get his point yet) or under my head (he is misapplying the word to an area of life where the word why is linguistically inappropriate). He makes the point in that piece that if the laws aren't immutable, there must be some higher-order law determining in what ways they are *not* immutable, a meta-law, so you just move the question up a level. In other words, whether the laws we have discerned are immutable isn't his point; it's why there should be any laws in the first place. As I said to Peter, if you ask religionists why there are laws, they'll tell you it's because that's how God designed the universe. If you ask scientists, they'll say, That's just the way it is. What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
I have been close to a member of one of these organizations. My brother-in-law. Also, had I done what I was supposed to do at age 18, I would have married into that whole world, and I knew very well what that world was about and what my role in it would be. I mentioned in another post that this b-in-l had created a conspiracy against the peoples of two African countries. Let me be more specific. It was his assignment in both cases to go in and nationalize business, industry, and government to make these countries independent of French colonial rule. That was the official job. The unofficial job was to make it seem like this was happening without in fact disturbing the hegemony and the income realized by France and the World Bank who, in the end, remained very much in control of both countries. That's a conspiracy in my book. Of course, the b-in-l was convinced that what he was doing was in fact in everyone's best interest. I lived with him and my sister for about a year and saw things I can't repeat. But I do not for a minute doubt the aptness of the pyramid imagery (after all, we've got it on our money), though I can't conclude with Icke that lizards run the show. I have seen no real evidence. On the other hand, anything is possible and anything means anything. It is the nature of a pyramid that the whole thing is transparent from the top down but opaque from the bottom up. aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awesome writing. I respond to Icke's pyramid imagery. Basically we are in a kind of global system of organized crime. There are pyramids we can (to an extent) see, such as the Council of Foreign Relations, where, for example, you can go to their website and read a half dozen or so position papers on how absolutely wonderful the world will be when Mexico joins with the U.S. and Canada, and then there are pyramid organizations like the Bilderburgers (just the name of the hotel where they had their first meeting) that meet in secret, and then there are secret organizations like the Masonic system, and the even more secret ones like Skull and Bones. The people who are at the bottom and middle of these org's are the chumps, and even as they approach the top, they may not be given any insight into the plans going on. Its only a few at the top of these pyramids that reporting to their masters, large monied families who would really rather not be known. I can see how someone would dismiss this as conspiracy drivel but if you have ever benn close to a member of one these organizations you would think differently. Its crucial then, that communities independently developing concioussness, (Fairfield) stay strong and vibrant. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly as a given; but how is that different from taking the existence of God as a given? But it wasn't a given in science. It is just something we are uncovering about the world by studying it using the scientific method. I mean, we take as a given what we've uncovered, i.e., that the universe is orderly. We've uncovered orderliness, but we don't question why there should be orderliness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
My original statements were 1) I see fascist elements in the TMO. That's not a matter of discussion. I see what I see. Prolly cause I've got Hitler on the brain. 2) I think the New Age may play into the hands of those leading us to fascism because of the emphasis on personal development which is about me, it's not about us. Also, we tend to believe things that keep us from political activism. a) We have a technique that will bring peace on earth, all we have to do is practice it in the privacy of our homes and domes b) We don't focus on negativity. Last time I was in the dome, Marshy out and out said to ignore what was going on in the world. But to me, seeing a boulder in the road ahead when I'm driving is not focusing on negativity. c) If bad things happen to others (as in Gitmo and God knows how many other secret locations) then that is their karma. If we get involved in that, we're taking that terrible karma on ourselves--in a kind of reversal of Christian doctrine. d) We do not oppose. e) We only speak the truth that is sweet. f) We eventually come to believe that no matter what goes down, all is right in God's world. The less educated and intelligent fall for Christian fundamentalism, the more educated and intelligent are led away from political activism in the way I've outlined. a authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. If either of them actually said it, it's entirely possible it was a throwaway line referring to some relatively minor incident that appeared spontaneous but turned out to have been planned. In other words, it may not have much of any bearing on the issue at hand. That said-- The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes --you're surely right about this. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
You make some excellent points which I will think about. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; Depends on how one classifies it. I include counter-culture thinking and trends for the 60's as part of my broad definition of new age. And the 60's revolution, IMO, has been silently won in the past 20-40 years. Many if not most of the very fringe ideas then, amazingly now to think how provincial, limited, and tight-assed American and the world were back then. In short-hand, anyone can take issue with the specifics without my giving more precise treatment, the following is commonplace now, and odd, fringe, weird, if not immoral and decadent in mid to late 60' across he wider population -- middle america, Peoria, etc: womens, blacks, hispanics and gays right to equal jobs and pay, healthy, nutritious food, yoga, meditation or all forms, pre-marital sex and cohabitation, recreational chemicals, deeply questioning and saying no to the government, t'shirts and jeans as mainstream dress , ecology and the environment, birth control, abortion rights, vegetarianism -- or at least not eating red meat 3 times a day, fitness, joggimg, gay and interracial couples in public, the musical, art, trends of the 60's +, broader access to education, etc. (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. Agreed. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. Certainly not a new theme in FDR's time. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. I don't see Angela imposing anything. She brings up some interesting points. Some less so. All or most worth considering and sharpening ones own stance on the topic, It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted perspectives of those in power and those who support them. I see, and have held since the 2000 appointment of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your equating God with mystery. Like Churchill's quote which I have heard them use in this context It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It sort of Vedanta level Christianity. But for the most part I think religious people think that the word God and his revealed intentions in scripture have replaced the mystery with certain knowledge. This is completely different than letting it be a mystery. Ayn Rand's primacy of existence focuses on this area a bit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity. I am tying to understand his point about science taking immutable laws as a given. I see it Richard's way so far. I don't see why this assumption is necessary. Practically speaking physicist don't test to see if gravity has changed each and every day. They may be relying on a working assumption that this law hasn't changed lately, but if it does and someone discovers that new law science will move with the new information. Science is uncovering how stuff operates. The assumption that stuff operates under laws isn't really necessary. But so far it seems as if there are predicable laws. His interjection of the question why into this observation is either going over my head (I don't get his point yet) or under my head (he is misapplying the word to an area of life where the word why is linguistically inappropriate). He makes the point in that piece that if the laws aren't immutable, there must be some higher-order law determining in what ways they are *not* immutable, a meta-law, so you just move the question up a level. In other words, whether the laws we have discerned are immutable isn't his point; it's why there should be any laws in the first place. As I said to Peter, if you ask religionists why there are laws, they'll tell you it's because that's how God designed the universe. If you ask scientists, they'll say, That's just the way it is. What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
Yes, I agree. Supportive. I never said causal and wouldn't. Causes are impossible to speak of in the area of intellectual history. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks of these tendencies. And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of self-development. They ended up 20-30 years later with a repressive, totalitarian like cult, yogic flying, the Laws of Manu, and now mealy mouthed rajas. Did they consciously choose that in the beginning? I suggest the above four tendencies are predominant in most TMO groups, past or present. And the result has been people getting sucked into something they would not have otherwise -- to the extent they did -- if they had been less gullible, more skeptical, more questioning, less attracted to grand solutions and a mission to save the world. I think a group or society with the above four tendencies is a more fertile ground for creeping transition towards, not necessarily to, totalitarian and fascist regimes. Not causal . But a supportive, albeit not intentionally, feature. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original statements were 1) I see fascist elements in the TMO. That's not a matter of discussion. I see what I see. Prolly cause I've got Hitler on the brain. At least as much in the way of fascist elements in Christianism. 2) I think the New Age may play into the hands of those leading us to fascism because of the emphasis on personal development which is about me, it's not about us. Same could be said of Christianism, and there are a lot more Christianists than there are New Agers. Also, we tend to believe things that keep us from political activism. Christianists make a big point of being politically active, especially to elect those who will impose their beliefs on the rest of us. a) We have a technique that will bring peace on earth, all we have to do is practice it in the privacy of our homes and domes And Christianists want everyone to practice their techniques to bring about the apocalypse, in public. b) We don't focus on negativity. Last time I was in the dome, Marshy out and out said to ignore what was going on in the world. But to me, seeing a boulder in the road ahead when I'm driving is not focusing on negativity. Do you focus on the possibility that there will be boulders in the road when you aren't *on* the road? c) If bad things happen to others (as in Gitmo and God knows how many other secret locations) then that is their karma. If we get involved in that, we're taking that terrible karma on ourselves--in a kind of reversal of Christian doctrine. This ain't the TMO view, and I doubt it's the view of most New Agers. As far as Christianists are concerned, if bad things happen to those in Gitmo and other secret locations, they deserve it because they're terrorists who would murder us at the drop of a hat. It would be disastrous for national security (i.e., for *my* security) if we attempted to make life any easier for them. d) We do not oppose. e) We only speak the truth that is sweet. f) We eventually come to believe that no matter what goes down, all is right in God's world. All this exactly the opposite of the Christianists. Which set of beliefs is more amenable to fascist control? The less educated and intelligent fall for Christian fundamentalism, the more educated and intelligent are led away from political activism in the way I've outlined. a Which is more dangerous with regard to the possibility of the rise of a fascist regime, not engaging in political activism or engaging in it *to bring about that very fascist regime*? Angela, you make all my points for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) )
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray to God that he may quit me of God. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your equating God with mystery. Like Churchill's quote which I have heard them use in this context It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It sort of Vedanta level Christianity. But for the most part I think religious people think that the word God and his revealed intentions in scripture have replaced the mystery with certain knowledge. This is completely different than letting it be a mystery. Ayn Rand's primacy of existence focuses on this area a bit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: That's all that happens, we try to understand and explain by using reason, if a law fits for a while it is called a scientific truth, meaning that it's the most likely explanation for the observable facts, if new facts comes to light the laws change. Nothing anti-reason about it. The process is no mockery of itself, we're still learning. His point is that science takes the existence of immutable physical law as a given, just as religionists take the immutable Word of God in their scriptures as a given. That's what he says is an absurdity. I am tying to understand his point about science taking immutable laws as a given. I see it Richard's way so far. I don't see why this assumption is necessary. Practically speaking physicist don't test to see if gravity has changed each and every day. They may be relying on a working assumption that this law hasn't changed lately, but if it does and someone discovers that new law science will move with the new information. Science is uncovering how stuff operates. The assumption that stuff operates under laws isn't really necessary. But so far it seems as if there are predicable laws. His interjection of the question why into this observation is either going over my head (I don't get his point yet) or under my head (he is misapplying the word to an area of life where the word why is linguistically inappropriate). He makes the point in that piece that if the laws aren't immutable, there must be some higher-order law determining in what ways they are *not* immutable, a meta-law, so you just move the question up a level. In other words, whether the laws we have discerned are immutable isn't his point; it's why there should be any laws in the first place. As I said to Peter, if you ask religionists why there are laws, they'll tell you it's because that's how God designed the universe. If you ask scientists, they'll say, That's just the way it is. What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your equating God with mystery. Like Churchill's quote which I have heard them use in this context It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It sort of Vedanta level Christianity. But for the most part I think religious people think that the word God and his revealed intentions in scripture have replaced the mystery with certain knowledge. Well, many do, but Davies isn't really considering that type of religious person. He's looking more at the way legitimate scientists who are also religious think, a much more sophisticated approach, comparable to that of your Christian monks. In any case, I think you'll find very few religionists who don't end up with some form of God's ways are not our ways when they ask the big questions. In other words, their certain knowledge includes the knowledge that God is ultimately a mystery. Again, what's the difference between the religionist's That's just how God wants it and the scientist's That's just the way it is? This is completely different than letting it be a mystery. Ayn Rand's primacy of existence focuses on this area a bit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is for the sake of the mystery that Meister Eckhart said, I pray to God that he may quit me of God. More like, If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. Note that, in Barry's mind, any vigorous disagreement with his own views is automatically angry and its motivations therefore suspect. Some might consider such a premise itself to be a tad fascistic (no need to cap the term in its generic sense, Barry). If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. I don't doubt for an instant that the supporters of a Barry Government would say precisely the same thing about its naysayers. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute. I don't think that's actually the bottom line of Angela's argument. FWIW, it does capture a, perhaps not all, bottom lines (there actually can multiple conclusions, even if not bottom lines) of my argument, referenced above. In any case, as I've already pointed out, the threat posed to society by those willing to submit to authoritarian leaders is to be found with any sectarian group; true , but that does not make new agers any less prone to do so. but the sectarian groups among New Agers are all pitifully small and lacking in influence compared to those among adherents of the established religions, Christianity in particular. Fine. But that in no way nullifies my basic premise that new-agers, broadly defined, and TMO TB's specifically, have the inner structures a least a bit ripe, or in the process of ripening, adequate for getting hood-winked into a totalitarian framework.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One reader review quotes the last paragraph of the book: Perhaps we have reached a fundamental impasse dictated by the limitations of the [waking state]human intellect. There we go! I know! The sleep state intellect is so much more appealing and powerful. Peter, i don't know if you sense how odd it comes across to some, deviant and blind as we may be, to use waking state in the same 30 year old fashion once use fascinate newbie initiates in a minor spiritual cliquish cult of the 1970s. There was hilarious exchange some time ago between you and Irmeli, where you kept talking about waking state as the antithesis of a wakefulness state. But the inner cliquish english TMO reference left irmeli, a quite intelligent woman, madly frustrated when you kept repeatedly accusing her (not a bad descriptor, IMO) of being in waking state. And here her response was, from a variety of angles, parapharsing, of course I am awake, in waking state. Do you want to have this discussion while we are both asleep. And you never seemed to pick up on her lack of assimilation of the TMO clique and obscure connotation of waking state. It reminds me of the story, a sad one, but insightful, with humorous moments, of the girl raised in Maharishiville, aka FF. When at 10 or so, she couldn't find her parents, and she went around looking for them. Adults kept asking where they had gone, and she kept answering They are flying. You know, they are flying. And the townies, in that era, had no clue what she was talking about. But flying was such a part and parcel of her families vocabulary, she innocently extended that to understand that ALL adults understood what flying was. But my delight in seeing you keep referring to waking state, you know waking state!, and the parallel sincere cautionary feedback, is probably waking state ignorance. All I can say is, damn, you should see me when I am asleep! Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany. Yes, I am blonde haired, blue eyed and beautiful too. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. Your game also tends to involve, after several exchanges, challenging anyone who pushes your buttons and disagrees with you to a fist fight. Yea right. You are the only one that has made the most henious, disgusting, childish, practically libalous, statements to people on this forum. (Don't make me post them again;-) They'd all kick your ass, of course, but still it's pretty classic Brown Shirt behavior. Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) But by the way, don't forget you are way more of a Ru now, than I will ever be. But cheer up, I'm just playin' wit' ya (like a cat playin' with the mouse) Have a nice day, I'm just taking a break between skiing up in Vermont. It's awesome, wish you were here. Luv from Tommy. OffWorld as usual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Again, what's the difference between the religionist's That's just how God wants it and the scientist's That's just the way it is? A pick up truck of detailed pre-suppositions including, but not limited to: We know some of the qualities of God including what he wants, we know that these qualities are different from the many other Gods we could be following, specific revealed scriptures contain ethical guidance on specific behaviors and attitudes... The term God is jam packed with concepts and ideas that give the word meaning. Even my Vedantist monks still believe that the Bible is different from other books created by humans and contains revelations about the ultimate reality of life including specific guidance on behavior. I know I am preaching to the choir here Judy. You don't buy that stuff either. So how does the phrase God wants it convey the more honest expression that we have no idea? Instead it gives the slippery appearance that we know that there is a specific God and this is what he wants. The volitional pre-supposition is the most troubling for me because it makes the optional fact that animals eat each other alive volitional for an all knowing, all powerful deity. (some animals kill their prey before pulling their guts out so it is obviously an option). God wants lions to start eating the nose of a living water buffalo as his buddies are disemboweling it. Even I could think of a better system and I didn't exactly pull perfect SAT scores. (damn math!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: What's the difference, other than that the religionists label the question mark God and the scientists don't label it? It's still the same unanswered question. This is the most interesting part of it for me, facing the mystery. I know some Christian monks who would be comfortable with your equating God with mystery. Like Churchill's quote which I have heard them use in this context It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. It sort of Vedanta level Christianity. But for the most part I think religious people think that the word God and his revealed intentions in scripture have replaced the mystery with certain knowledge. Well, many do, but Davies isn't really considering that type of religious person. He's looking more at the way legitimate scientists who are also religious think, a much more sophisticated approach, comparable to that of your Christian monks. In any case, I think you'll find very few religionists who don't end up with some form of God's ways are not our ways when they ask the big questions. In other words, their certain knowledge includes the knowledge that God is ultimately a mystery. Again, what's the difference between the religionist's That's just how God wants it and the scientist's That's just the way it is? This is completely different than letting it be a mystery. Ayn Rand's primacy of existence focuses on this area a bit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) So how's your ground game? Seen any UFCs in the last decade? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Actually Mainstream, if you were not so stupid, and stopped thinking that your silly whining comments on FFl have any value, meaning, or effect in the world ...at all... ...then, you the might be smart enough to realize that it is YOU who said all those things about yourself. Bw ha ha ! Alas, you are not smart enough for that, therefore you are consigned to the garbage can of history with the rest of the 20th century neanderthals that never made it into the new era. And people claim that those involved in spiritual groups or New Age groups aren't the types who would get involved in fascistic or authoritarian systems. Get over it. Give Off a Brown Shirt and he'd have fit right in to 1930s Germany. Yes, I am blonde haired, blue eyed and beautiful too. Cheer up. I'm just playin' wit ya. This is just a game. Your game also tends to involve, after several exchanges, challenging anyone who pushes your buttons and disagrees with you to a fist fight. Yea right. You are the only one that has made the most henious, disgusting, childish, practically libalous, statements to people on this forum. (Don't make me post them again;-) They'd all kick your ass, of course, but still it's pretty classic Brown Shirt behavior. Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) But by the way, don't forget you are way more of a Ru now, than I will ever be. But cheer up, I'm just playin' wit' ya (like a cat playin' with the mouse) Have a nice day, I'm just taking a break between skiing up in Vermont. It's awesome, wish you were here. Luv from Tommy. OffWorld as usual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. Pretty packaging for TMO initiatives, Pretty packaging for political platforms, pretty packaging of astrology. Theya are ALL so pretty! It all sounds nice. And all are, or can be absorbed, and accepted gullibly -- for those who have high(er) degrees of the 4-5 tendencies that I enumerated. As I said, i think the gullible are the last to know they are gullible. They cannot turn it on or off. IMO, the point is well demonstrated here when you read some wide-eyed laudations of this or that candidate. Some such drip with gullibility, IMO. For some, the gullies, I don't see rigorous analysis or natural skepticism getting cranked up when political ideas and platforms are put under their nose. YMMV. Gullies is an interesting descriptor. Gullies get really inspired by Seagull stories -- and are prone to pledge substantial sums for a permanent residence for our king here in FF based on such stories. Only to go, a few months later, Gee whiz, they pulled the wool over our eyes AGAIN. Oh well, I am sure they won't do THAT again. La de Da! Life is Bliss. And then in the next breath go on to talk about their favorite political candidate and how the candidate is so in tune wit the laws of nature and has SUCH a good Jyotish chart -- they are sure to be the next president. For such gullies, I simply don't see rigorous analysis or natural skepticism getting cranked up when political ideas and platforms are put under their nose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article. He makes his point clear as crystal at the very end: It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme. In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.) There's a great deal of Davies material on the Web if anyone is interested in more details. Here's his personal home page: http://cosmos.asu.edu/ (Some of the links, unfortunately, are out of date.) Here's a link to a piece in the Guardian that's almost identical to the Times op-ed; what's interesting is the VERY long comments section that follows. Many of the commenters raise the same points folks here have raised: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shankara on maayaa?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 By Sri Sankaracharya Though the emission of ejaculate onto sleeping garments or bedclothes is yielded by the natural experience of copulation in a wet dream, the stain of the garment is perceived as real upon waking whilst the copulation and lovemaking was not true or real. Both sexual partners in the dream are unreal as they are but dream bodies, and the sexual union and conjugation was illusory, but the emission of the generative fluid was real. This is a metaphor for the resolution of duality into lucid unity. I think TM would be a flourishing world-wide institution if it taught pure Shankara. At minimum, if Forest academies taught this, a lot more MIU students would be groking Brahmin.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, what's the difference between the religionist's That's just how God wants it and the scientist's That's just the way it is? A pick up truck of detailed pre-suppositions including, but not limited to: We know some of the qualities of God including what he wants, we know that these qualities are different from the many other Gods we could be following, specific revealed scriptures contain ethical guidance on specific behaviors and attitudes... You're getting sidetracked. The point is, it's all speculation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article. Excellent, because this is where the most interesting point lies, his formulation of the third choice. I give his site a read to try to understand what he is driving at and if you have already guessed what it is. He makes his point clear as crystal at the very end: It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme. In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.) There's a great deal of Davies material on the Web if anyone is interested in more details. Here's his personal home page: http://cosmos.asu.edu/ (Some of the links, unfortunately, are out of date.) Here's a link to a piece in the Guardian that's almost identical to the Times op-ed; what's interesting is the VERY long comments section that follows. Many of the commenters raise the same points folks here have raised: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. No, you're missing the point. I'm describing two ends of a spectrum, not a black-and-white dichotomy. The less we know or can know about something, the more gullible the New Agers are. The more we know about something, the more skeptical they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shankara on maayaa?
Now see I have to show my complete and total ignorance here because I really do not know what the heck Shankara is (I will look it up). I do hope, as the years go by, that TM takes care of its advanced students curriculum needs and if, just for example, there is a recurrence of headaches or some negative physical effect, that some sort of expert in the lineage can be called upon to assist. Good Grief they appear to be rich enough. Their advanced practitioners are the people who have made the tremendous commitment of time, money and energy. They deserve focused attention. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 By Sri Sankaracharya Though the emission of ejaculate onto sleeping garments or bedclothes is yielded by the natural experience of copulation in a wet dream, the stain of the garment is perceived as real upon waking whilst the copulation and lovemaking was not true or real. Both sexual partners in the dream are unreal as they are but dream bodies, and the sexual union and conjugation was illusory, but the emission of the generative fluid was real. This is a metaphor for the resolution of duality into lucid unity. I think TM would be a flourishing world-wide institution if it taught pure Shankara. At minimum, if Forest academies taught this, a lot more MIU students would be groking Brahmin.
[FairfieldLife] Totalitarianism and Its Stalinist / Bevinist Flavors
Proponents of the term [Stalinism] argue that it includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shankara on maayaa?
Ok, I found some Shankara information on the web. Very Interesting. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 By Sri Sankaracharya Though the emission of ejaculate onto sleeping garments or bedclothes is yielded by the natural experience of copulation in a wet dream, the stain of the garment is perceived as real upon waking whilst the copulation and lovemaking was not true or real. Both sexual partners in the dream are unreal as they are but dream bodies, and the sexual union and conjugation was illusory, but the emission of the generative fluid was real. This is a metaphor for the resolution of duality into lucid unity. I think TM would be a flourishing world-wide institution if it taught pure Shankara. At minimum, if Forest academies taught this, a lot more MIU students would be groking Brahmin.
[FairfieldLife] Mao and MMY Managment Methods
MMY uses a parallel management and organization change method, similar to Mao (and perhaps some western businesses). Essentially, recreate the organization periodically. Destry the old order, create new structures. In time, destroy them and recreate ... SRM == SIMS == Regional Coordinators == 108 / WPEC == Flying Governors == ... Purusha == ... Council of Supreme Intelligence ... == King Tony, Rajas . - A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from most other left-wing ideologies (save for mainstream Marxism-Leninism and Trotsky's theories) is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period, as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism. Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for the restoration of capitalism. Indeed, Mao famously stated that the bourgeoisie [in a socialist country] is right inside the Communist Party itself, implying that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented. This was officially the main reason for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, in which Mao exhorted the public to Bombard the [Party] headquarters! and wrest control of the government from bureaucrats (such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping) perceived to be on the capitalist road. This is akin to the Stalinist theory of the aggravation of class struggle under socialism. Mao's doctrine is best summarized in the Little Red Book of Mao Zedong, which was distributed to everyone in China as the basis of revolutionary education. This book consists of quotations from the earliest days of the revolution to the mid-1960s, just before the beginning of the Cultural Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. ... The less we know or can know about something, the more gullible the New Agers are. The more we know about something, the more skeptical they are. I neither challenge or accept that premise. However, regardless, the conclusion is consistent with my larger thesis. That is, that many new-agers, many TB/rus, IMO, display parallel degrees of gullibility in things such as astrology as in politics -- specifically in the area of the economy (around which much of politics revolves). IMO, and observation, some, quite a few IMO, new agers, TB/Rus, and Rus -- divorced from the TMO, are not very knowledgable about economics. And they spout / repeat naive and gullible political platforms about economic matters based on this shallow knowledge. They are gullible in this field of which they do not have substantive knowledge, as well as in matters of astrology, etc. Whether such gullies are less gullible in matters in which they do have more knowledge, is an interesting question. I tend to think they are. But I will consider your POV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) So how's your ground game? Seen any UFCs in the last decade? Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotokan: True karate is this: that in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice. --Gichin Funakoshi OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) Yes. But are you Invincible? Do you have no enemies (e.g., people who think you are an angry, egotistical, potty mouth?) Have you created a field where no such enemies could ever arise?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an agency external to the universe? I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's back up just a bit and go back to Davies's article. Excellent, because this is where the most interesting point lies, his formulation of the third choice. I give his site a read to try to understand what he is driving at and if you have already guessed what it is. He makes his point clear as crystal at the very end: It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme. In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.) There's a great deal of Davies material on the Web if anyone is interested in more details. Here's his personal home page: http://cosmos.asu.edu/ (Some of the links, unfortunately, are out of date.) Here's a link to a piece in the Guardian that's almost identical to the Times op-ed; what's interesting is the VERY long comments section that follows. Many of the commenters raise the same points folks here have raised: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111345,00.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) So how's your ground game? Seen any UFCs in the last decade? Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE This is not to say that you aren't a total badass. Warrior spirit goes a long way. But the evolution of mixed martial arts is really amazing. All the top fighters these days are crosstrained in Thai boxing for striking, Brazilian Ju-jitsu for ground game and wrestling for take downs and position control. You might enjoy a UFC. I think you would find it is a long way from the bar room. Shotokan: True karate is this: that in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice. --Gichin Funakoshi OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) Yes. But are you Invincible? Do you have no enemies (e.g., people who think you are an angry, egotistical, potty mouth?) Have you created a field where no such enemies could ever arise? Hey, um put up your dukes, um, anagitam.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) ) What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) ) What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves.
[FairfieldLife] TM, Invincible America Retrospective
Invincible America: Call to action; July 2006 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/107519 Except, ejected August 2006 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/104974 Except rejected, August 2006 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/108879 Rejected: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/108731 Yogic flyer ad, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/117667 Des Moines Reg. 8-2006 article, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/119862 Can't find, the 190 Million. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/117466 Invincible America Course 10-2006; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/120103 Can't get the numbers needed Oct 2006: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/113629 Om on the Range (Washington Post) Thread http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/123603 Pundits arriving Nov 2006 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/122802 Pity, the Poor Pundit, April 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138226 Invincible America Course, April 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/138230 Invincible America, the numbers, April 2007: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/137558 Invincible America, course numbers June 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/141603 Journalistic FF, April 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139997 Maharishi's Legacy, summer 2007 thread http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/147313 Invincible America, Sept 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/149703 TMorg Finances, October 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/150175 New TMorg Rajas, Oct 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/152941 Raja: German Invincibility Nov `07 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/154841 Link to Time article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1684582,00.htm U-tube David Lynch, Bevan Hagelin tour with the German Raja, http://nosedef.blogspot.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/154876 New Age-like Elements and the Third Reich (thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/155343 The TM New Age Reich (thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/155348
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jim_flanegin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: I wrote a paper on this very subject while working on my Master's at Harvard Divinity School... That was in 1980 or so, right after constant immersion in the omnipresent gold light/angels/deities/blah- blah-blah of Unity and immediately followed by 2 years of Dark Night. I wonder if there was a correlation *there*? *lol* (Dis/claimer to any and all of mySelf: Please, please, please -- plunge into the Dark, if that is where (y)our inquiry takes us! The True Dark is not bad -- or good for that matter -- it is not even Dark because of an absence of Light. It is Dark because it is *faster than light* -- outside of the bubble of illusory spacetime. That where ourSelf lies, Truly :-) ) What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves. Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we can program the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE This is not to say that you aren't a total badass. Warrior spirit goes a long way. But the evolution of mixed martial arts is really amazing. All the top fighters these days are crosstrained in Thai boxing for striking, Brazilian Ju-jitsu for ground game and wrestling for take downs and position control. You might enjoy a UFC. I think you would find it is a long way from the bar room. Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we can program the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering. IOW, because we know we are nothing we can give our particles ANYthing they desire (desire = of the star(s); particular). Our simple, ordinary thoughts are just thoughts to us, but they are concrete, physical, divine mandates to those particles/gods within us to whom we are God, and who make up our space-time physiology or body- mind. By honestly attuning to our desire-particles, bestowing grace on them, and listening to their feedback, and adjusting our subsequent grace- bestowals to meet their needs, we comb or align them into harmony with us, into integrity, converting the resistant or demonic aspects of ourselves into coherent or angelic polarity. Thereafter as we fluctuate from nothing or boundlessness into particular or spacetime bodymind, our bodymind now projects the paradise we have programmed...as it was always meant to do, and has been faithfully doing, ab principio *lol*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an agency external to the universe? (a) God, or (b) laws of nature. Probably would be clearer if you read the article we're talking about, yes? I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness. Funny, that's what I just said I'd bet that the answer involves. Oh, wait, you said *more* than a buck... snip (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight. With UFC now more popular among the under 35 demographic than football, the chances of finding the old windmill style bar fighter may be over. Since I spend some time around alcohol and testosterone in my work I would never count on my Jiu Jitsu training in a public place. My favorite plan B after not mouthing off is a Kubaton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubotan I learned about it from a cop and it is a good plan B. Great for ladies to carry on their key chain too. Strikes are just not reliable, but with this you have some stun power. I always have one in my hand on the way to my car at night. Of course I also have a plan C but discussing it would be very uncool... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE This is not to say that you aren't a total badass. Warrior spirit goes a long way. But the evolution of mixed martial arts is really amazing. All the top fighters these days are crosstrained in Thai boxing for striking, Brazilian Ju-jitsu for ground game and wrestling for take downs and position control. You might enjoy a UFC. I think you would find it is a long way from the bar room. Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight. With UFC now more popular among the under 35 demographic than football, the chances of finding the old windmill style bar fighter may be over. Since I spend some time around alcohol and testosterone in my work I would never count on my Jiu Jitsu training in a public place. My favorite plan B after not mouthing off is a Kubaton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubotan I learned about it from a cop and it is a good plan B. Great for ladies to carry on their key chain too. Strikes are just not reliable, but with this you have some stun power. I always have one in my hand on the way to my car at night. Of course I also have a plan C but discussing it would be very uncool... Just as input, from someone who studied martial arts for over a decade and, in the US, always had some aspect of my attention keeping a lookout for potential danger, it's been interesting to live in Europe for the last four and a half years. I can honestly that not *once* in all that time has there been any necessity to reserve any part of my attention for scanning for danger, much less carrying a weapon of any kind. It's been a kind of revelation, realizing that random violence is *not* an ever-present possi- bility. I walk where I want, when I want, in all types of neighborhoods and at all hours of the night and day, and have never in 4-1/2 years felt as if there was the possibility of violence. After a lifetime of living in US cities where that awareness was rarely far away, especially at night, it's been really fascinating living in a place where it's just not a part of the environment. Oh, sure, there is the occasional violence and mugging in Europe, but I've never run into even a *hint* of it personally. The contrast has been quite interesting to try to get used to.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it ain't the universe. G. Spencer Brown puts it well in his Laws of Form: It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see itself, and appears to suffer the process. That is does so is sometimes called the original mystery. Perhaps in view of the form in which we presently take ourselves to exist, the mystery arises from our insistence on framing a question when there is, in reality, nothing to question. That last sentence is especially interesting in that he italicizes certain words, which I'll capitalize: Perhaps in view of THE FORM in which WE presently TAKE ourselves TO EXIST, the mystery ARISES FROM our insistence on FRAMING a question when there is, in reality, NOTHING. to question. If you take those words out of the sentence, you get: The form we take to exist arises from framing nothing. authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what he means by an external agency. Where is there an agency external to the universe? (a) God, or (b) laws of nature. Probably would be clearer if you read the article we're talking about, yes? I'd bet more than a buck that the answer involves consciousness. Funny, that's what I just said I'd bet that the answer involves. Oh, wait, you said *more* than a buck... snip (I'd bet a buck the explanation he has in mind involves consciousness.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the problem then. The universe either includes all, or it ain't the universe. Just read the article, eh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones about dragons! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? Perhaps the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function again in space time, while being true to our Selves. Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we can program the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Mao and MMY Managment Methods
On Nov 25, 2007, at 2:14 PM, new.morning wrote: MMY uses a parallel management and organization change method, similar to Mao (and perhaps some western businesses). (snip) Mao's famous saying, could also easily be Mahesh's: A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth. -Chairman Mao
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight. With UFC now more popular among the under 35 demographic than football, the chances of finding the old windmill style bar fighter may be over. Since I spend some time around alcohol and testosterone in my work I would never count on my Jiu Jitsu training in a public place. My favorite plan B after not mouthing off Well if Invincibility and not creating enemies doesn't work, I would of course try, Plan B, Turn the other check. As for your stuff, mmy said, watch for what these chineese boys do. Direct quote. More in reference to chineese medicine -- but I am sure he meant it to apply across the board. Plan C -- well a rip roaring lecture to my assailants on the bad karma they were creating could be really powerful. Plan D -- well, if I could manage to get them under a vat of hot sessame oil, to drp on their forehead, I am sure that the anger and tension would simply instantly vanish. And we would become great chums. Plan E, wave my hand, full of jyotish woo woo ray gems and gold. That ought to work just fine. Plan F, Bashti!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been a kind of revelation, realizing that random violence is *not* an ever-present possi- bility. I walk where I want, when I want, in all types of neighborhoods and at all hours of the night and day, and have never in 4-1/2 years felt as if there was the possibility of violence. After a lifetime of living in US cities where that awareness was rarely far away, especially at night, it's been really fascinating living in a place where it's just not a part of the environment. Oh, sure, there is the occasional violence and mugging in Europe, but I've never run into even a *hint* of it personally. The contrast has been quite interesting to try to get used to. I've never run into even a *hint* of it personally. In the US. In Asia. Or Europe. Though once when a vendor led me through the extensive, 4 foot wide maze of alleys, with large bulls with larger horns, in Benares, at night, I was thinking I could easily disappear and never surface again. But, no problemo. The lack of contrast has not been very interesting, nothing to get used to. Maybe i should move to some of the finer cities you inhabited. (Or was the danger usually from the husband or bf coming home at 3am?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) So how's your ground game? Seen any UFCs in the last decade? Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE DUDE ! 'scuse me butTHAT IS NOT SHOTOKAN ! ! I don't WTF that is. but is NOTHING like Shotokan. There is ABSOLUTELY NO wrestling in Shotokan. All strikes are from a distance, and a Shotakan master would annihilate those UFC people ESPECIALLY if it was in a real situation, because the Shotokan black belt in sparring HAS to hold back 99% of their annihilation power so as not to kill someone. THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) Yes. But are you Invincible? Do you have no enemies (e.g., people who think you are an angry, egotistical, potty mouth?) Have you created a field where no such enemies could ever arise? No, because I am the enem-er, and the enem-ee, both. (it is Turq that is the third category, the enima) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE This is not to say that you aren't a total badass. Warrior spirit goes a long way. But the evolution of mixed martial arts is really amazing. All the top fighters these days are crosstrained in Thai boxing for striking, Brazilian Ju-jitsu for ground game and wrestling for take downs and position control. You might enjoy a UFC. I think you would find it is a long way from the bar room. Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight. True, which is like the quote I posted in the beginning: True karate is this: that in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice. --Gichin Funakoshi ... but if you think those videos that Curtis posted are Shotokan, then you know nothing of Shotokan as you claimed. Those videos Curt posted are an insult to Shotokan. THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, Yup. Describes you perfectly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, Yup. Describes you perfectly. No , I failed the test, so I took up TM. That failed that too. So fuck it, humility is for the dogs. Good luck with that. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] 24 as done with 1994 technology
24 as done with 1994 technology http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1788161
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) Yes. But are you Invincible? Do you have no enemies (e.g., people who think you are an angry, egotistical, potty mouth?) Have you created a field where no such enemies could ever arise? Tell that to Arjunalol !3 million people drawn up on the battlefield ready for COMPLETE anihilation, and he is in the middle of it prayin' to jesus for help. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go Boy, to the utterly untrained eye, that's pretty darned impressive stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rory Goff rorygoff@ wrote: Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I mean real) equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we can program the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering. IOW, because we know we are nothing we can give our particles ANYthing they desire (desire = of the star(s); particular). Our simple, ordinary thoughts are just thoughts to us, but they are concrete, physical, divine mandates to those particles/gods within us to whom we are God, and who make up our space-time physiology or body- mind. By honestly attuning to our desire-particles, bestowing grace on them, and listening to their feedback, and adjusting our subsequent grace- bestowals to meet their needs, we comb or align them into harmony with us, into integrity, converting the resistant or demonic aspects of ourselves into coherent or angelic polarity. Thereafter as we fluctuate from nothing or boundlessness into particular or spacetime bodymind, our bodymind now projects the paradise we have programmed...as it was always meant to do, and has been faithfully doing, ab principio *lol* Beautifully put! (patting mySelf on the back...) Seriously, really well done, and blissfully conveyed! Yes, it really is what the universe intends for us after all-- that the simplest state, that of pure acceptance and surrender, conveys with it an eternal, ever changing, ever renewable paradise. On the other hand, the second (literally) we enter space time with the intent to control it, we are bound into just that and no more, again gaining just exactly what we have sought. Either way we gain exactly what we want, though through complete surrender to our universal nature, we gain so much more. Also, the bit about attaining lightspeed having as its symptomatic reflection the golden light, gods and dieties is very helpful, as I tend to slip into my perceptions of gods and dieties as a continuum of some avenue of self discovery or other. To see their phenomena as essential identification with nature makes perfect sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
... but if you think those videos that Curtis posted are Shotokan, then you know nothing of Shotokan as you claimed. Those videos Curt posted are an insult to Shotokan. THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go I thought you were a pro science guy. You know peer reviewed studies? The review of martial arts has been settled in the octagon ring. The videos I showed were challenge matches by brave Shotokan fighters against a martial art designed to counter striking arts by grappling. I have nothing but respect for those guys. The guys who hide in dojos and never test their system should be washing their GIs. The videos on your tape were students in point matches and highly choreographed demos with people playing the part of an attacker but then giving no resistance and rolling out of the way when the master touched them. Ever try to flip someone using one hand who doesn't want to flip over? We are exactly 15 years too late for any argument about traditional karate styles, the issue has been settled in the ring by guys willing to put their traditions on the line to really find out what works. Any dojo that isn't cross training now is running an aerobics class. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any attention on any martial art is great IMO. So high five for that. But comparing choreographed demos to challenge matches is not realistic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: Shotokan, not yer sloppy bar-room brawlers. Shotakan is a venerable ancient art. Certainly better than barroom brawlers. However it doesn't work as well on the ground as the technical fighters in mixed martial arts in UFC have discovered. Here is an example of how it looks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W-SltgKQHDUfeature=related Here is Shotokan specifically: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWegy3_mhLE This is not to say that you aren't a total badass. Warrior spirit goes a long way. But the evolution of mixed martial arts is really amazing. All the top fighters these days are crosstrained in Thai boxing for striking, Brazilian Ju-jitsu for ground game and wrestling for take downs and position control. You might enjoy a UFC. I think you would find it is a long way from the bar room. Having studied Shotokan for a number of years before investigating other styles, I have to agree with Curtis about its applicability in the real world. It's similar to what someone said about Maharishi and the Rajas earlier today -- the idea of being able to fight is a great deal more important than being able to fight. True, which is like the quote I posted in the beginning: True karate is this: that in daily life one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility, and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice. --Gichin Funakoshi ... but if you think those videos that Curtis posted are Shotokan, then you know nothing of Shotokan as you claimed. Those videos Curt posted are an insult to Shotokan. THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] “my message to y ou”
In a message dated 11/25/2007 6:51:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDrbagYm24 Thanks, that was the most beautiful message I have received in weeks so full of love a fine reflection of U as well. THANKS **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought you were a pro science guy. You know peer reviewed studies? The review of martial arts has been settled in the octagon ring. The videos I showed were challenge matches by brave Shotokan fighters against a martial art designed to counter striking arts by grappling. You have absolutley no understanding of martial arts. You cannot compare the grappler to the Shotokan fighter. It would be like comparing a bicyle to a race car with no gas in it. Sure the bucycle will win ...LOL...what a joke. You have no understanding of martial arts. In Shotokan the Shotokan fighters KNOW that once ONE strike is made the fight is stopped, for a few seconds, because the Shotokan expert knows that if you put your full trained force behind it then the guy would be dead or severely knocked over. You cannot compare a Shotokan fighter to any of those other styles. They stop the Shotokan fight instantly for a second or two, you see it in this video below, the untrained eye does not see that the fight is stopped for a second or two every few seconds of fighting becasue a point was given, and the Shotokan people KNOW that that IS A VERY SERIOUS BLOW if full force were given. It never is given in the sparring. Only mild representaions of it. Therefore your idiots on the UFC stuff etc. have no clue about the reality of it, that is why a Shotokan sparring match stops the fight after one strike, but many of the other martial arts do not appear to understand this, so they continue the fight as if nothing happened. Lol !...the Shotokan fighter has knocked your stupid head off and you don't even know it because you know so LITTLE about true martial arts. There is no way inder the sun that a grappler will get near an expert in Shotokan. It is over before the grappler knows what has happened. You need to watch this next video to understand that SHotokan dominates the world of martial arts...by far. Don't discuss this anymore with me until you watch this and understand why the fight is stopped every few seconds...because they are trained to kill someone with one SINGLE blow. http://youtube.com/watch?v=292RJFjGCKAfeature=related OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: my message to you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Janet Luise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDrbagYm24 Thanks, Janet Luise, for the joy. Hope you and Tom are well. How's Tom's bro, Bill ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Uhu, unlikely. ( 3 years of intense karate training, full blooded perfect health, Scottish with a tinge of English just for measure, and not one ounce of fear within this physique. How about you? ) Yes. But are you Invincible? Do you have no enemies (e.g., people who think you are an angry, egotistical, potty mouth?) Have you created a field where no such enemies could ever arise? Hey, um put up your dukes, um, anagitam. Punning in Sanskrit ;) JohnY
[FairfieldLife] Re: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
Erik wrote: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers? Anyone know, why are saaMkhya-suutras thought to be written as late as 14th or 15th century A.D? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Willytex: Sage Patanjali, who compiled the 'Yoga Sutras', salutes the Buddha as the wisest of men. Empty Bill sez: Willy you must be thinking of Gaudapada's introduction to the Karikas not Patanjali. Willytex: Mahraj Shree Shankaracharya has fortuitously prepared a very nice sub-commentary to Veda Vyasa's 'Vivarana' on the 'Yoga Sutras of Patanjali' which has recently been translated into English. Empty Bill sez: Vyasa wrote a Bhasya (commentary) on the YS. Shankara wrote a vivarana (sub-commentary). Vivarana means that he integrates both Patanjali (the sutra-kara) and Vyasa (the commentator) together in his analysis and discussion. Willytex: Sage Patanjali says: Yoga is the cessation of the mental turnings of the mind Yoga citta vritti nirodha. I.1.2 Empty Bill sez: Not bad. However Yogash chitta vritti nirodhah: can also have a more focused translation which is actually in accord with how meditation is done. This is significant because nirodha (cessation) has a different value in Buddhism than in YS. Nirodha (as the cessation of activities) does not require a sense of tying something down (restraining) - as if one were capturing a fugitive nor of holding something back (ceasing from) as if suppressing one's own natural tendency. YS 1.2 - Yogash chitta vritti nirodhah: Yogash: yoga is, Chitta: individual consciousness, Vritti: whirl, turn, function, and operate, Nirodhah: arrest, let rest, cease, restrain. Thus a meditator's translation of YS 1.2 would be: Yoga is resting the operations of individual consciousness. Willytex: Apparently the Buddha and Patanjali both ascribed to the Sankhya philosophy. Empty Bill sez: Many scholars have noted the similarities between Sankhya and Yoga on the one side and Buddhist teachings on the other. Sankhya (as a metaphysics) was however, considered as one of the main competitors to Yogachara philosophy and practice. Sankhya was historically defined as one of the main opponents to Buddhist thought and is still taught this way by contemporary Tibetan shedras (religious schools) even here in the good old USA. Empty Bill concludes with a note about Sankhya from M.Mueller - From the Krama-dipika, a commentary on the Tattva-samasa: III. 25. Now it is asked, What is the Purusha? and the answer is, Purusha is without beginning, it is subtle, omni-present, perceptive, without qualities, eternal, seer, an experiencer, not an agent, a knower of objects, spotless, not producing. Why is it called Purusha? Because of its being old (Puranat), because it rests in the body (Purisayate), and because it serves as Purohita (Director). These are, of course, fanciful etymologies; and we can hardly doubt that we have, in the name Purusha, a recollection of the Vedic Purusha, one of the many names of the supreme deity. Like Brahman when conceived as Atman, Purusha also was probably used both for the divine and for the human side of the same power. It is the multiplicity only of the Purusha which is peculiar to the Samkhya philosophy. And why is the Purusha without beginning? Because there no beginning, no middle, and no end of it. This is not a very satisfactory answer, but it probably means no more than that we never perceive a beginning, middle, or end of it. Why is it subtle? Because it is without parts and supersensuous. Why omnipresent? Because, like the sky, it reaches everything, and its extent is endless. Why perceptive? Because it perceives (that is, for a time) pleasure, pain, and trouble. Why without qualities? Because the qualities of good, indifferent, and bad are not found in it. Why eternal? Because it was not made, and cannot be made. Why seer? Because it perceives the modifications of Prakriti. Why enjoyer? Because being perceptive it perceives (for awhile) pleasure and pain. Why not an agent? Because it is indifferent and without the qualities (Gunas). Why the knower of body or of objects? Because it knows the qualities of objective bodies. Why spotless? Because neither good nor evil acts belong to the Purusha. Why not productive? Because it has no seed, that is, it can produce nothing. Thus has the Purusha of the Samkhya been described. Thus have the twenty-five substances been described, viz., the eight Prakritis, the sixteen Vikaras, and the Purusha. He who knows these twenty-five substances, whatever stage of life he may be in, and whether he wear matted hair, a topknot, or be shaven, he is liberated, there is no doubt. This verse is often quoted by Samkhya philosophers. Here, it seems, the first part of the Tativa-samasa is ended, containing a list of the twentyfive Tattvas, in the three divisions of Prakritis, Vikaras, and Purusha.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
I am very familiar with full contact tournaments. They have many more rules than a mixed martial arts matches. It is a great sport. But we started the discussion about actual fighting without rules about takedowns. One punch one kill is a fantasy perpetuated by people who stay our of the Octagon. Hitting someone who doesn't want to get hit is actually very hard. Ever spar with a boxer? All that straight line traditional attack stuff gets stuffed fast. There is no way inder the sun that a grappler will get near an expert in Shotokan. It is over before the grappler knows what has happened. This theory has been falsified many times over. If you are close enough to strike, you are close enough to be taken down. Don't watch UFC 1-6 if you want to keep your illusions in place. All the one strike boys end up on the grown tapping out before they pass out. it is not that people can't be knocked out by one punch. Sure they can. Its just that it isn't easy to do while someone is taking you to the ground. Now that all the strikers are cross trained in boxing and Muay Thai the effectiveness of the traditional karate strikes are very limited. Just watch the videos of people actually using the techniques you are theorizing about. You talk a good game about scientific studies but you are an fantasist. But prove me wrong. I have provided video references for my POV. Show me some examples of strikers staying on their feet against someone who wants them on the ground. Like I said the jury has been in for over a decade on this issue. You are arguing a flat world theory. All serious martial arts schools do cross training unless they are traditionalist who don't do challenge matches. Shotokan people KNOW that that IS A VERY SERIOUS BLOW if full force were given. It never is given in the sparring. Oh reaallly! I know all about matches. Now show me how Shotakan People KNOW this if they don't ever do it in full contact, full power fights like in UFC? Actually some brave karate master have. They were willing to learn the truth. But as I am finding out, that isn't your interest is it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I thought you were a pro science guy. You know peer reviewed studies? The review of martial arts has been settled in the octagon ring. The videos I showed were challenge matches by brave Shotokan fighters against a martial art designed to counter striking arts by grappling. You have absolutley no understanding of martial arts. You cannot compare the grappler to the Shotokan fighter. It would be like comparing a bicyle to a race car with no gas in it. Sure the bucycle will win ...LOL...what a joke. You have no understanding of martial arts. In Shotokan the Shotokan fighters KNOW that once ONE strike is made the fight is stopped, for a few seconds, because the Shotokan expert knows that if you put your full trained force behind it then the guy would be dead or severely knocked over. You cannot compare a Shotokan fighter to any of those other styles. They stop the Shotokan fight instantly for a second or two, you see it in this video below, the untrained eye does not see that the fight is stopped for a second or two every few seconds of fighting becasue a point was given, and the Shotokan people KNOW that that IS A VERY SERIOUS BLOW if full force were given. It never is given in the sparring. Only mild representaions of it. Therefore your idiots on the UFC stuff etc. have no clue about the reality of it, that is why a Shotokan sparring match stops the fight after one strike, but many of the other martial arts do not appear to understand this, so they continue the fight as if nothing happened. Lol !...the Shotokan fighter has knocked your stupid head off and you don't even know it because you know so LITTLE about true martial arts. There is no way inder the sun that a grappler will get near an expert in Shotokan. It is over before the grappler knows what has happened. You need to watch this next video to understand that SHotokan dominates the world of martial arts...by far. Don't discuss this anymore with me until you watch this and understand why the fight is stopped every few seconds...because they are trained to kill someone with one SINGLE blow. http://youtube.com/watch?v=292RJFjGCKAfeature=related OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] 3 Million Wariors Ready to Pounce
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell that to Arjunalol !3 million people drawn up on the battlefield ready for COMPLETE anihilation, and he is in the middle of it prayin' to jesus for help. If 3 million warriors had come bent on anihilating me, it may cause me to ponder what i did to piss so many people off so much. And I might even gain some insight prior to my head being lopped off. Not such a bad way to go. Realizing something significant. I know some think violence towards them is just some random act. Having nothing to do with them. I find that a fantastic view -- as in fantasy. Building on Curtis' first line of defense -- don't mouth off', crudely, obnoxiously, blatently in a crowed bar, I think no one would be surprised of the result if they did. So there appears some link in some cases to ones behavior and violence cast upon oneself. Its not all random. Why this mechanism would suddenly stop, or breakdown at some point is not clear to me. If one walks the streets of a city at night, and is fearful, perhaps that fear is well placed. Deep inside one may sense they are owed some violence. If one is not owed violence, perhaps one feels more secure. Or at least ends up never being attacked. And if one feels safer on one continent than another, perhaps they spawned violence in some places and peace in others. Creating a feeling of peace and security in some places and not in others. Of course there may the sins (karma) of omission as well as commission. Ones society may have perpetuated violence on another -- and one stood by not sufficiently trying to stop it. Perhaps ones accrues a debt of violence upon themselves for that. Regardless, when 2 million warriors descend down upon you, I do see value in not solely shouting Oh, God -- but Oh, God, What TF did I do? Some final reflection -- and insight -- may make the pounding worth it. In the early 70's I worked on a grand project to build a university in the mountains of North Carolina. The place had a reputation, and history, of having many copperheads -- quite poisonous -- slithering in the hills. None of us was ever bitten. A visiting personality expressed some concern. We looked at other, said, if our time has come, then today's a good day to die. We laughed, and scuttled down a bushy hillside, -- a favorite copperhead local -- without care. Caution is good, but you can't let fear rule your life. Even if its due fear.
[FairfieldLife] Shotokan dominates Martial Arts_______wasMannounces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very familiar with full contact tournaments. They have many more rules than a mixed martial arts matches. It is a great sport. But we started the discussion about actual fighting without rules about takedowns. One punch one kill is a fantasy perpetuated by people who stay our of the Octagon. You do not understand martial arts Curtis A Shotakan fighter will likely not PUNCH you in a REAL fight where it REALLY mattered. In less than a SPLIT second... You will get a force of a hard bone foot THROUGH your head. You WILL be dead. Or, you will bet the force of a foot THROUGH your chest. You will be dead. Or, you will bet the force of a foot THROUGH your stomache. You will be close to dead. Or, you will get the force of a foot breaking your knees open, then as you collapse, you will get a force of a hard bone foot THROUGH your head. You WILL be dead. Or, you will get the force of a foot breaking your ankles up, then as you collapse, you will get a force of a hard bone foot THROUGH your head. You WILL be dead. Or, you will get that punch you never expected with the full force of a massively trained body and speed behind it that goes THROUGH your chest like a freight-train. You will be dead. Or you will be swept OFF your feet completely before you know where you are, and then as you collapse, you will get a force of a hard bone foot THROUGH your head. You WILL be dead. If any one of these does not kill you, you will be knocked so hard it will take time to recover, then, its too late, bacause the second blow comes in a split second and you will be dead. You have no idea of the bone shattering power a Shotokan fighter is trained to givewith his foot or fist, and you will not be able to guess which one it might be and where it will land. You let EVEN ONE blow through, and the chances are you will not recover, the next blow kills you. And those above do not count the numerous spots on the body that the Shotokan fighter KNOWS are specific and almost certain KILL spots. You just don't get it Curtis. READ MY LIPS: If you are watching a fight where the fight is NOT stopped after one strike (at least for a second or two), then you are not watching a legitimate martial art. IF the fighters carry on, then it is because they do not understand that a blow with full SHotokan power, will likely break a bone or collapse an organ. That is why Shotokan sparring stops after one blow. You cannot measure this killing power in some stupid TV show, because people would die. It is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous thing to the Shotokan experts to carry on a fight after one or two blows. It is a laughable joke, and if people have told you they cannot kill you with one or two blows, you are SERIOUSLY misled. You do not remotely understand martial arts Curtis. the Hitting someone who doesn't want to get hit is actually very hard. Ever spar with a boxer? Boxing is a joke. The boxer in a real fight would be dead. There are techniques that even a black belt in Shotokan (never mind the 5th and 6th dan guys), that would COMPLETELY baffle and throw a boxer off and before the guy knows what happened he would be gently laid to the ground, flat out, with a hard bone of a heel coming towards his face at an unprecedented speed. If it were carried through, that bone would break the guys skull. Curtis, you just don't get it. A true expert in shotokan will take down 95% of the others in a split second, but the other baboons keep fighting as if nothing happened. LOL...it is a joke. You know nothing about the bone shattering power of a single well placed kick, which could land anywhere on your body. And that does not even count the specialized kill spots. You are living in a TV ratings fantasy land when it comes to martial arts. Shotokan dominates Martial Arts, and almost all Shotokan experts are totally humble. The only thing more powerful than thatpure transcendental consiousness. Over and out. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big chamber and go boom boom! Or one about dragons. I love the ones about dragons! It looks as if you are more than capable of generating your own :-)
